| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64178 views | Dr_Winston |
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |  |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:04 - Feb 22 with 2378 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:24 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
Point of order and I’m not defending the term limits thing because I made my views on that clear at the time and they haven’t changed. But it’s not true that the Trust went to or asked if it could change/remove the term limit tenures in the way you’ve implied there. Supporters Direct removed term limits from the model rules that all trusts should adopt, it was not done at the request of the Trust. Individual trusts can set their own term limits if they want but they’re not in the SD model rules anymore. |
I'm sure I read some correspondence on here between a Trust person and a poster and it mentioned that the Trust had spoken to SD, explained the issues with recruitment and asked for advice on the term limits. The advice was to do what the Trust thought was necessary, considering the circumstances.
Something like that anyway.
It was posted here around the time that Phil resigned. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:13 - Feb 22 with 2361 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:04 - Feb 22 by MoscowJack |
I'm sure I read some correspondence on here between a Trust person and a poster and it mentioned that the Trust had spoken to SD, explained the issues with recruitment and asked for advice on the term limits. The advice was to do what the Trust thought was necessary, considering the circumstances.
Something like that anyway.
It was posted here around the time that Phil resigned. |
That’s different. When it was highlighted that some board members were in breach of the 12 year rule the trust then took advice from SD which was to continue as is until the updated rules, sans term limits, could be adopted at the AGM. All that was before my time on the board but you’re right it was on here and in a Trust statement at the time.
But that’s markedly different from the Trust proactively asking SD if it could remove the term limit from the rules because it knew some people were in breach of it, as you originally implied. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:44 - Feb 22 with 2305 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:13 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
That’s different. When it was highlighted that some board members were in breach of the 12 year rule the trust then took advice from SD which was to continue as is until the updated rules, sans term limits, could be adopted at the AGM. All that was before my time on the board but you’re right it was on here and in a Trust statement at the time.
But that’s markedly different from the Trust proactively asking SD if it could remove the term limit from the rules because it knew some people were in breach of it, as you originally implied. |
I don't get it - what would they asked about removing the clause if it didn't effect people who were over the limit?
They asked the question because they knew that several were over the term and wanted a way around it, which they got.
It's quite late here and I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something, but that's certainly the way it seemed then and now. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:57 - Feb 22 with 2283 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:44 - Feb 22 by MoscowJack |
I don't get it - what would they asked about removing the clause if it didn't effect people who were over the limit?
They asked the question because they knew that several were over the term and wanted a way around it, which they got.
It's quite late here and I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something, but that's certainly the way it seemed then and now. |
So from what I remember at the time (and again I wasn’t involved with the Trust then so this isn’t “inside knowledge”j it was highlighted (on here mainly) that Trust board members weren’t allowed to serve more than 12 consecutive years according to Trust’s own rules.
Whether the Trust board at the time knew about that rule and decided to ignore it or didn’t know until it was highlighted I’ve no idea. Draw your own conclusions, neither scenario is particularly flattering for the Trust.
After it was highlighted the Trust took advice from SD which was to continue as is until the new model rules, which don’t have term limits as standard because SD removed then, could be adopted at the AGM. The trust had tried to adopt new SD rules without term limits at previous AGMs but spectacularly failed to complete the required admin and registration process.
What didn’t happen is that the Trust didn’t go to SD to ask if they could remove the 12 year limit cos it knew it had board members in breach of that rule. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:04 - Feb 22 with 2264 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:57 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
So from what I remember at the time (and again I wasn’t involved with the Trust then so this isn’t “inside knowledge”j it was highlighted (on here mainly) that Trust board members weren’t allowed to serve more than 12 consecutive years according to Trust’s own rules.
Whether the Trust board at the time knew about that rule and decided to ignore it or didn’t know until it was highlighted I’ve no idea. Draw your own conclusions, neither scenario is particularly flattering for the Trust.
After it was highlighted the Trust took advice from SD which was to continue as is until the new model rules, which don’t have term limits as standard because SD removed then, could be adopted at the AGM. The trust had tried to adopt new SD rules without term limits at previous AGMs but spectacularly failed to complete the required admin and registration process.
What didn’t happen is that the Trust didn’t go to SD to ask if they could remove the 12 year limit cos it knew it had board members in breach of that rule. |
Just a quick one And, are you involved in the Trust now? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:06 - Feb 22 with 2257 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:04 - Feb 22 by TheResurrection |
Just a quick one And, are you involved in the Trust now? |
Get to the point, Chris. It’s late and I’m about to log off. Spit it out. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:08 - Feb 22 with 2249 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:06 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
Get to the point, Chris. It’s late and I’m about to log off. Spit it out. |
There is no point. Was just asking if you're involved.
Let me know if you find out | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:09 - Feb 22 with 2241 views | TheResurrection |
Email exchange with Alan Lewis...
First message at the bottom....
Hi Alan,
I think you know that's the case and I think you know the Trust has failed its members considerably of late.
The Trust was not involved in detailed negotiations? This is the starting point and biggest mistake
Why wasn't it?
Regards
Chris
Sent from Blue
On Feb 22, 2018, at 14:46, alewis@swanstrust.co.uk wrote:
Hi Chris
Just a quick follow up to my previous acknowledgement of your email, although the Trust's message to members, which you will hopefully have seen yesterday, does address this, as did Nigel Hamer's response to you similar enquiry.
The Trust was not involved in the detailed negotiations although we were kept in the picture on the broad outline of the deal with regular reports to Board Meetings. Documentation received last week requires more detailed scrutiny and this is now being looked at by a sub-group of the Board.
It is disappointing to hear that you 'along with a huge number of Trust members are absolutely disgusted' by my general running of the organisation. One can only do ones best.
best wishes
Alan
Alan Lewis
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chris
Sent: Monday, 19 February, 2018 9:26am
To: alewis@swanstrust.co.uk
Subject: Re: Swans Trust Board - Co-opted Positions
Hi Alan,
Can you please explain the process the Trust followed in the Football Club coming to a decision to purchase the lease of the stadium and what are the reasons for doing this, who from the Trust was involved in the deal negotiations and why, pray, why, did they not consult with the elected Trust Board members and communicate accordingly with the wider member base?
I would appreciate an urgent reply to this as I, along with a huge number of Trust members are absolutely disgusted by this and your general running of the organisation.
Many thanks
Chris | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:10 - Feb 22 with 2238 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:08 - Feb 22 by TheResurrection |
There is no point. Was just asking if you're involved.
Let me know if you find out |
You’re more effective when you’re being up front, mate. If you’ve got something to say, say it. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:13 - Feb 22 with 2215 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:10 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
You’re more effective when you’re being up front, mate. If you’ve got something to say, say it. |
Honestly mate thats it. I know you were Co-opted on but are you involved?
Are you making a difference? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:20 - Feb 22 with 2186 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:13 - Feb 22 by TheResurrection |
Honestly mate thats it. I know you were Co-opted on but are you involved?
Are you making a difference? |
Not a huge amount. Majority rules see. If you think I’ve been a useless addition to the board that’s fine. I’m not bothered what you think really. I genuinely wish you’d been coopted as well though. It would be been good to see how much of a difference you’d have made. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:24 - Feb 22 with 2164 views | swancity |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:09 - Feb 22 by TheResurrection |
Email exchange with Alan Lewis...
First message at the bottom....
Hi Alan,
I think you know that's the case and I think you know the Trust has failed its members considerably of late.
The Trust was not involved in detailed negotiations? This is the starting point and biggest mistake
Why wasn't it?
Regards
Chris
Sent from Blue
On Feb 22, 2018, at 14:46, alewis@swanstrust.co.uk wrote:
Hi Chris
Just a quick follow up to my previous acknowledgement of your email, although the Trust's message to members, which you will hopefully have seen yesterday, does address this, as did Nigel Hamer's response to you similar enquiry.
The Trust was not involved in the detailed negotiations although we were kept in the picture on the broad outline of the deal with regular reports to Board Meetings. Documentation received last week requires more detailed scrutiny and this is now being looked at by a sub-group of the Board.
It is disappointing to hear that you 'along with a huge number of Trust members are absolutely disgusted' by my general running of the organisation. One can only do ones best.
best wishes
Alan
Alan Lewis
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chris
Sent: Monday, 19 February, 2018 9:26am
To: alewis@swanstrust.co.uk
Subject: Re: Swans Trust Board - Co-opted Positions
Hi Alan,
Can you please explain the process the Trust followed in the Football Club coming to a decision to purchase the lease of the stadium and what are the reasons for doing this, who from the Trust was involved in the deal negotiations and why, pray, why, did they not consult with the elected Trust Board members and communicate accordingly with the wider member base?
I would appreciate an urgent reply to this as I, along with a huge number of Trust members are absolutely disgusted by this and your general running of the organisation.
Many thanks
Chris |
More inept, weak, clueless fannying around from the Trust. Can't they see that they have to be strong, to challenge things, to grow a fecking pair. Feck me I can't stand reading any more of this stuff, honestly. What's plural for a group of clitoris? That's the Trust Board that is. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:34 - Feb 22 with 2141 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:20 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
Not a huge amount. Majority rules see. If you think I’ve been a useless addition to the board that’s fine. I’m not bothered what you think really. I genuinely wish you’d been coopted as well though. It would be been good to see how much of a difference you’d have made. |
Haha, ok, ok, you're a bit touchy tonight. I shouldn't joke...
The problem is I, and I guess many others, dont know what to think, do we.
Majority rules on what? What are you discussing and who's saying what?
You've been overwhelmingly non-committal and vague on this latest farce.
You've been on since, what was it December, so maybe you could answer some questions directly, seeing as the potential leasing of the stadium was a boiling hot potato for at least the last 6 months?
Did you or anyone else within the Trust Board bring up the subject of the lease on the stadium during Board meetings
How many times did the topic of the Lease crop up in meetings?
Did you ask who was involved our end in the deal?
Did you ask to what extent they were involved?
Did you get the answers you expected or wanted, if asked in the first place?
Did you raise it as a concern if the answers to the above weren't satisfactory?
Did you write the last Trust statement?
Are you concerned with the perception of the Trust, and this from some of its oldest and most loyal supporters? (not referring to me here)
Do you think the present Board are fit for purpose?
Can you make change happen?
Cheers in advance | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 08:52 - Feb 23 with 1924 views | MoscowJack |
I honestly want to know what the Trust thinks it can do if they find anything worrying, now that the deal has been signed and announced!
If FAR too late. This deal has been public knowledge for months and months, but only now the Trust want to see the detail? It's embarrassing.
Instead of the Trust saying "everything's fine, everyone....we're now going to check to see if there's anything nasty hidden in the detail" they should be totally honest and let us know the real position the Trust are in. If it's "we were unfortunately excluded from the more important details of the deal until after it was already signed so we will not comment further until we have given the experienced experts within the Trust a chance to inspect the deal in more detail".....or something like that!
If building bridges isn't a priority anymore, why the need to lie? I just don't get it.... | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 08:57 - Feb 23 with 1913 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:57 - Feb 22 by exiledclaseboy |
So from what I remember at the time (and again I wasn’t involved with the Trust then so this isn’t “inside knowledge”j it was highlighted (on here mainly) that Trust board members weren’t allowed to serve more than 12 consecutive years according to Trust’s own rules.
Whether the Trust board at the time knew about that rule and decided to ignore it or didn’t know until it was highlighted I’ve no idea. Draw your own conclusions, neither scenario is particularly flattering for the Trust.
After it was highlighted the Trust took advice from SD which was to continue as is until the new model rules, which don’t have term limits as standard because SD removed then, could be adopted at the AGM. The trust had tried to adopt new SD rules without term limits at previous AGMs but spectacularly failed to complete the required admin and registration process.
What didn’t happen is that the Trust didn’t go to SD to ask if they could remove the 12 year limit cos it knew it had board members in breach of that rule. |
ECB, thanks for taking the time to try to get my head around it but this is the point I can't believe:
"What didn’t happen is that the Trust didn’t go to SD to ask if they could remove the 12 year limit cos it knew it had board members in breach of that rule."
I believe that's exactly what happened. Nobody had cared about changing it before several people were over the 12 years and they reacted in the only way they could, once they realised this.
Anyway, we could go round and round on this forever so happy to agree to disagree (for harmony's sake) although it would be good if someone with good search abilities could find those messages posted on here a while back as I believe they were quite clear. I haven't got a clue how to do that. Was it Nookiejack (?) who posted them? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:08 - Feb 23 with 1892 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 08:52 - Feb 23 by MoscowJack |
I honestly want to know what the Trust thinks it can do if they find anything worrying, now that the deal has been signed and announced!
If FAR too late. This deal has been public knowledge for months and months, but only now the Trust want to see the detail? It's embarrassing.
Instead of the Trust saying "everything's fine, everyone....we're now going to check to see if there's anything nasty hidden in the detail" they should be totally honest and let us know the real position the Trust are in. If it's "we were unfortunately excluded from the more important details of the deal until after it was already signed so we will not comment further until we have given the experienced experts within the Trust a chance to inspect the deal in more detail".....or something like that!
If building bridges isn't a priority anymore, why the need to lie? I just don't get it.... |
I'm sure the Trust wanted to see the details much earlier. That doesn't mean the Owners have to provide it.
And before anyone else says it, I agree that, in such circumstances, the Trust should have been broadcasting the fact that they were being denied important information. The fact that the majority weren't prepared to do that for one reason or another is a very big part of why I'm now a "failed ex-Trust Board member" (c) The Resurrection |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:28 - Feb 23 with 1876 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:08 - Feb 23 by MattG |
I'm sure the Trust wanted to see the details much earlier. That doesn't mean the Owners have to provide it.
And before anyone else says it, I agree that, in such circumstances, the Trust should have been broadcasting the fact that they were being denied important information. The fact that the majority weren't prepared to do that for one reason or another is a very big part of why I'm now a "failed ex-Trust Board member" (c) The Resurrection |
Matt - great post!
I agree, I'm sure the Trust did want to see the details much earlier but they were so passive that they left the door open for the owners to ignore them.
When news broke about the owners being in initial talks with the council about taking over the lease (a few months or so ago) the Trust responded in their usual way.....absolute and complete silence!
The Trust should have welcomed this idea, but stressed that the deal needs to be right for the longer-term future of the club, not just the current owners and council. They should have made it COMPLETELY clear to everyone what their concerns were and added that they fully expect to be given a chance to examine the small print before it's signed off.
If they had done this, the Trust would then be able to publicly question why they weren't given such vital information, especially as the Trust are not only 21% shareholders, but the unofficial guardians of the longer-term future of the club.
It drives me mad and, again, I can only assume it's either incompetence, negligence or something more sinister. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:36 - Feb 23 with 1872 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:08 - Feb 23 by MattG |
I'm sure the Trust wanted to see the details much earlier. That doesn't mean the Owners have to provide it.
And before anyone else says it, I agree that, in such circumstances, the Trust should have been broadcasting the fact that they were being denied important information. The fact that the majority weren't prepared to do that for one reason or another is a very big part of why I'm now a "failed ex-Trust Board member" (c) The Resurrection |
Matt, I know what you must think about me and that's more than fair enough, I totally accept that. Being blunt with you. I think you're one of the good guys, even though I've said things like you've quoted above.
But someone has to play the Bad Cop sometimes or nothing gets heard of or done.
So, apologies to you.... My failed ex Trust Board member 😉 | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:42 - Feb 23 with 1866 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:28 - Feb 23 by MoscowJack |
Matt - great post!
I agree, I'm sure the Trust did want to see the details much earlier but they were so passive that they left the door open for the owners to ignore them.
When news broke about the owners being in initial talks with the council about taking over the lease (a few months or so ago) the Trust responded in their usual way.....absolute and complete silence!
The Trust should have welcomed this idea, but stressed that the deal needs to be right for the longer-term future of the club, not just the current owners and council. They should have made it COMPLETELY clear to everyone what their concerns were and added that they fully expect to be given a chance to examine the small print before it's signed off.
If they had done this, the Trust would then be able to publicly question why they weren't given such vital information, especially as the Trust are not only 21% shareholders, but the unofficial guardians of the longer-term future of the club.
It drives me mad and, again, I can only assume it's either incompetence, negligence or something more sinister. |
It's what they should've done when the initial share sale was first making news as well.
And people ask me why I have far more disdain for the Trust than I did the selling shareholders, then this is why... !!!
It shouldn't be hard to understand this. If we the fans, we the Trust can't stand up for itself and show the tiniest inkling of courage then they've completely failed us.
And Matt, Phil, Ux, Clase and Lisa now, you continuing to pussyfoot around what things were like or still are like makes you all complicit and you may as well just stick two massive fingers up to all your mates and the fans of Swansea City.
We need to know what's going on on the inside. What votes are happening and who's voting for what.
We need names.
You owe the fuddy duddy's who've sold us down the river, nothing. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:50 - Feb 23 with 1773 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:42 - Feb 23 by TheResurrection |
It's what they should've done when the initial share sale was first making news as well.
And people ask me why I have far more disdain for the Trust than I did the selling shareholders, then this is why... !!!
It shouldn't be hard to understand this. If we the fans, we the Trust can't stand up for itself and show the tiniest inkling of courage then they've completely failed us.
And Matt, Phil, Ux, Clase and Lisa now, you continuing to pussyfoot around what things were like or still are like makes you all complicit and you may as well just stick two massive fingers up to all your mates and the fans of Swansea City.
We need to know what's going on on the inside. What votes are happening and who's voting for what.
We need names.
You owe the fuddy duddy's who've sold us down the river, nothing. |
Should have shouted louder? Agree 100% but does that make them worse than the sellers? Not for me but you knew I'd say that.
In terms of votes, IMO the only one that really matters is the one taken in November to continue with negotiations on the sale of shares. If you check the minutes on the Trust website, it says that the vote was 8 to 3 in favour of continuing. Based just on posts made here, it's not rocket science to work out who the 3 were. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:11 - Feb 23 with 1758 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:50 - Feb 23 by MattG |
Should have shouted louder? Agree 100% but does that make them worse than the sellers? Not for me but you knew I'd say that.
In terms of votes, IMO the only one that really matters is the one taken in November to continue with negotiations on the sale of shares. If you check the minutes on the Trust website, it says that the vote was 8 to 3 in favour of continuing. Based just on posts made here, it's not rocket science to work out who the 3 were. |
Continue with Negotiations:
Viv Brooks
Viv Williams (is it? wagging guy)
Sian
Cath
Alan Lewis
Mute Stu
Roger Goodwin
One other?
To discontinue negotiations and to take a firmer stance:
Matt Griffiths
Phil Sumbler
Andrew Godden
Matt, Phil, Ux can you confirm the above?
But Matt, other votes are just as important. Cudey has said the majority ruled in a recent post. What did the majority rule on with the lease agreement? What was the vote exactly and who voted which way? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:45 - Feb 23 with 1718 views | chad |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:50 - Feb 23 by MattG |
Should have shouted louder? Agree 100% but does that make them worse than the sellers? Not for me but you knew I'd say that.
In terms of votes, IMO the only one that really matters is the one taken in November to continue with negotiations on the sale of shares. If you check the minutes on the Trust website, it says that the vote was 8 to 3 in favour of continuing. Based just on posts made here, it's not rocket science to work out who the 3 were. |
First I have a lot of respect for you personally
Secondly imho the most important vote was the one to recommend that deal in the first place when it was already painfully obvious they were not to be trusted; and the subsequent vigorous pushing of that position pre vote with some very questionable interpretations of Counsel advice. That is without doubtwhat brought us to where we are today.
I have said repeatedly that we need to involve all fans not just any people who are willing to pay a fiver tenner for whatever reason (and we know full well their were millions of reasons). Certainly the involvement of all season ticket holders would at least be a good start with a provable qualification.
The overriding role of the trust as guardians of our future and inclusion (not exclusion) of supporters, means of course they will be judged on their ability to vigorously and relentlessly pursue these objectives not curl up like kittens and clam up like well clams
#putthesupportersandthetrustbackintothesupporterstrust |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:08 - Feb 23 with 1690 views | chad |
As far as Supporters Direct, they are an umbrella organisation who provide advice and guidance.
We make are own rules and would have been totally within our rights given serious member concerns and availability of volunteers to retain the already loose officer serving limits which SD did away with in the latest version of the model rules (apparently dropped because of difficulty in recruiting replacements by some member trusts).
I presume despite concerns, the new rules were just voted through at the AGM, as the other rules which Ux was involved in, that make it a disciplinary offence for any Trust Board member to speak out against any policy agreed by the majority. This to me is an absolute joke and an agenda diametrically opposed to openness and supporter inclusion which is a primary objective of the trust.
If there was a vote to keep the supporters in the dark and the majority supported it no one would be allowed to mention it even if they disagreed. Hold on ..... | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:27 - Feb 23 with 1665 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:11 - Feb 23 by TheResurrection |
Continue with Negotiations:
Viv Brooks
Viv Williams (is it? wagging guy)
Sian
Cath
Alan Lewis
Mute Stu
Roger Goodwin
One other?
To discontinue negotiations and to take a firmer stance:
Matt Griffiths
Phil Sumbler
Andrew Godden
Matt, Phil, Ux can you confirm the above?
But Matt, other votes are just as important. Cudey has said the majority ruled in a recent post. What did the majority rule on with the lease agreement? What was the vote exactly and who voted which way? |
There was no vote on the stadium deal while I was on the Board.
No argument on the rest.
EDIT: Just checked and neither Alan nor Viv Brooks were at that meeting. The others were Will Morris, Dave Dalton and Ron Knuszka. [Post edited 23 Feb 2018 13:33]
| | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:44 - Feb 23 with 1638 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:45 - Feb 23 by chad |
First I have a lot of respect for you personally
Secondly imho the most important vote was the one to recommend that deal in the first place when it was already painfully obvious they were not to be trusted; and the subsequent vigorous pushing of that position pre vote with some very questionable interpretations of Counsel advice. That is without doubtwhat brought us to where we are today.
I have said repeatedly that we need to involve all fans not just any people who are willing to pay a fiver tenner for whatever reason (and we know full well their were millions of reasons). Certainly the involvement of all season ticket holders would at least be a good start with a provable qualification.
The overriding role of the trust as guardians of our future and inclusion (not exclusion) of supporters, means of course they will be judged on their ability to vigorously and relentlessly pursue these objectives not curl up like kittens and clam up like well clams
#putthesupportersandthetrustbackintothesupporterstrust |
I’ve said previously that, based on the situation at the time, I believe the recommendation to accept the deal was the right one and that the documents issued were reflective of where things stood. I know you and others don’t agree with that but I can only give my view.
I have also said that the subsequent deterioration in the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks was sufficient, in my view, to necessitate a further consultation with members given how that relationship had been portrayed in the documents. Others on the Trust Board saw it differently and, as ECB has said, majority rules. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
