| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change 12:23 - May 16 with 11566 views | TheResurrection |
The month of June is an important time for the Trust. It's the time they hold their elections but guess what, and it's the same every year there's virtually no mention of them.
This is the only real strategy they've ever had. One where the mechanism of the organisation doesn't get the chance to evolve or even breathe.
If the Trust had the best intentions of the Football Club and its fans at heart they'd be shouting from the rooftops that elections are due soon and doing their best to blood younger, more hungry and determined volunteers to sweep up their mess and inability to ever get things done.
They're confused, they're silent, they don't know which way to turn, what's up or down or wrong or right.
The set up we have currently with Mute Stu and Alan Lewis has been nothing short of a farce, yet they continue to hide away hoping that June will come and go so they can go back into hiding once more.
Time for Change??
Yeah. But years ago
|  |
| |  |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:42 - May 16 with 1381 views | bonymine |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:33 - May 16 by TheResurrection |
I'm not after your vote or anyone else's.
I need to step away from the Swans a bit for my own sanity..
Although if no one did step up and challenge the status quo I'd feel guilty
As for Jenkins, I'm undecided. A part of me wants him gone because I don't think we'll be able to move on properly with him still attached.
And a part of me thinks he would be useful staying. He's picked the right manager to get us up before. I really don't want to go over all the usual old ground as well but I'm a genuine Swans fan and that's my opinion. It's only for the right reasons and me thinking what maybe the best for my football club.
Try and respect that. |
Then stand down Chris as it’s clear you don’t know clearly which ‘camp’ you’re in through all of this .....
Maybe after the season we’ve had and the turmoil etc we can ALL make better decisions when the time is right ?
Maybe chill out with your wife and young family ....after all there’s far more important things in life than the Swans ........
[Post edited 16 May 2018 22:50]
|  |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:49 - May 16 with 1357 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:42 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Cheers MattG
Could I also clarify that on each valid ballot paper - if in 2016 there were 5 vacancies then each member would select 5 candidates and if in 2017 there were 6 vacancies - then each member would select 6 candidates. In contrast to each member just selecting 1 candidate at each election? |
Sorry MattG - could I also ask
If say a member had to choose 5 candidates in 2016 and 6 candidates in 2017 - and for example only
Alan Lewis, Viv Brooks, Ron Knuska, Viv Williams and say Uxbridge and ECB stood and a few others.
If I then only voted for Uxbridge and ECB - would that be counted as a valid ballot paper - or would I have been forced to choose 5 candidates in 0161 and 6 candidates in 2017 - so I then may have been forced to choose one of Alan Lewis, Viv Brooks, Ron Knuska, Viv Williams? |  | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:50 - May 16 with 1355 views | KingBony |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:42 - May 16 by bonymine |
Then stand down Chris as it’s clear you don’t know clearly which ‘camp’ you’re in through all of this .....
Maybe after the season we’ve had and the turmoil etc we can ALL make better decisions when the time is right ?
Maybe chill out with your wife and young family ....after all there’s far more important things in life than the Swans ........
[Post edited 16 May 2018 22:50]
|
Nice post Mark ðŸ‘🻠|  |
| Daddy Daddy cool, Daddy Daddy cool |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:56 - May 16 with 1333 views | bonymine |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:50 - May 16 by KingBony |
Nice post Mark ðŸ‘🻠|
Thanks mate ....that was from the heart given my own divorce situation & life is quite simply TOO SHORT !! | |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:03 - May 16 with 1315 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:06 - May 16 by TheResurrection |
No champagne for you that month! |
Snigger.
That's a completely different part of my budget mun.
Essentials budget rather than the Swans which is leisure budget :-) | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:06 - May 16 with 1302 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:49 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Sorry MattG - could I also ask
If say a member had to choose 5 candidates in 2016 and 6 candidates in 2017 - and for example only
Alan Lewis, Viv Brooks, Ron Knuska, Viv Williams and say Uxbridge and ECB stood and a few others.
If I then only voted for Uxbridge and ECB - would that be counted as a valid ballot paper - or would I have been forced to choose 5 candidates in 0161 and 6 candidates in 2017 - so I then may have been forced to choose one of Alan Lewis, Viv Brooks, Ron Knuska, Viv Williams? |
You can vote for as many or few as you wish. No requirement to use all 5 votes (and there'll be 5 elected positions this summer). |  |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:07 - May 16 with 1299 views | swancity |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:17 - May 16 by Swanseajill |
I'm shocked that you can make a comparison of the two boards in the same sentence.
Only one of the two have made a lot of money. And the other have given so much time and effort over the years...for now't. |
With respect to you this complete bollox about giving up time for nothing over the years is wearing thin and it's totally immaterial anyway. It's that small time shoe box mentality which has helped people like you think that doing it for nothing is equal to an excuse to balls something up. The Trust are a shambolic useless embarrassment. The fact that they do so for nothing doesn't change that one bit. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:11 - May 16 with 1287 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:06 - May 16 by Uxbridge |
You can vote for as many or few as you wish. No requirement to use all 5 votes (and there'll be 5 elected positions this summer). |
Thanks Uxbridge - so if 16 candidates stood for 5 elected positions - then a member could vote for all 16 candidates?
Or would a member just vote for 5 candidiates? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:16 - May 16 with 1268 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:11 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Thanks Uxbridge - so if 16 candidates stood for 5 elected positions - then a member could vote for all 16 candidates?
Or would a member just vote for 5 candidiates? |
is that a serious question? | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:20 - May 16 with 1250 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:16 - May 16 by londonlisa2001 |
is that a serious question? |
Yes
Because if a new Group formed it presumably has to field 5 candidates - to gain majority power on the Trust Board.
When it comes to the vote - the new Group then has to communicate to its supporters only to vote for the 5 of them and not for any other candidates - if in my example above you could vote 16 times. | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:33 - May 16 with 1201 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:20 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Yes
Because if a new Group formed it presumably has to field 5 candidates - to gain majority power on the Trust Board.
When it comes to the vote - the new Group then has to communicate to its supporters only to vote for the 5 of them and not for any other candidates - if in my example above you could vote 16 times. |
You get 5 votes. Use 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Even if 6 application or 160. | |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:35 - May 16 with 1197 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:20 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Yes
Because if a new Group formed it presumably has to field 5 candidates - to gain majority power on the Trust Board.
When it comes to the vote - the new Group then has to communicate to its supporters only to vote for the 5 of them and not for any other candidates - if in my example above you could vote 16 times. |
You think adults need to have it explained to them that if there are 5 spaces, you can't vote for 16 people to fill those spaces?
 | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:39 - May 16 with 1186 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:35 - May 16 by londonlisa2001 |
You think adults need to have it explained to them that if there are 5 spaces, you can't vote for 16 people to fill those spaces?
|
I think on a ballot paper you could have a number of candidates, more than 5 say, that come across well and so they could all be voted for.
I can turn the question around and say if there are only 5 elected positions - why aren't members only then given 5 votes - why more? | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:43 - May 16 with 1180 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:33 - May 16 by Uxbridge |
You get 5 votes. Use 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. Even if 6 application or 160. |
Cheers Uxbridge - I misinterpreted your post when you said "You can vote for as many or few as you wish".
So if there are 5 board members up for election - a member get 5 votes. Got it. | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:47 - May 16 with 1175 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:39 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
I think on a ballot paper you could have a number of candidates, more than 5 say, that come across well and so they could all be voted for.
I can turn the question around and say if there are only 5 elected positions - why aren't members only then given 5 votes - why more? |
Please ignore Uxbridge has clarified each member can vote up to 5 times in the next election - as there will be 5 Trust Board positions up for re-election. (Just in case someone comes to the thread late in the day). | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:51 - May 16 with 1163 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:39 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
I think on a ballot paper you could have a number of candidates, more than 5 say, that come across well and so they could all be voted for.
I can turn the question around and say if there are only 5 elected positions - why aren't members only then given 5 votes - why more? |
I suspect most people understand the concept of voting. 5 spaces = up to 5 votes.
Choosing 16 people for those 5 spaces because they all came across well would be quite spectacularly stupid don't you think? | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:54 - May 16 with 1156 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:47 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Please ignore Uxbridge has clarified each member can vote up to 5 times in the next election - as there will be 5 Trust Board positions up for re-election. (Just in case someone comes to the thread late in the day). |
So it's what could be described as 'a vote' then?
And that needed clarification? | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:07 - May 17 with 1125 views | MattG |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:47 - May 16 by Nookiejack |
Please ignore Uxbridge has clarified each member can vote up to 5 times in the next election - as there will be 5 Trust Board positions up for re-election. (Just in case someone comes to the thread late in the day). |
Actually, I'm not sure how many vacancies there will be at the next election - maybe Ux can confirm?
According to the Trust's rules " The Board consists of between 7 and 11 elected positions and between 2 and 4 co-opted posts." There are currently 8 board members with 4 up for re-election so, theoretically, there could be as many as 7 vacancies to take the board up to the maximum of 11? Or would that number be reduced on the basis that there are currently 6 co-opted members rather than the stated maximum of 4? |  | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:11 - May 17 with 1121 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:51 - May 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I suspect most people understand the concept of voting. 5 spaces = up to 5 votes.
Choosing 16 people for those 5 spaces because they all came across well would be quite spectacularly stupid don't you think? |
You two... Behave 😂 | |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:11 - May 17 with 1121 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 23:51 - May 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I suspect most people understand the concept of voting. 5 spaces = up to 5 votes.
Choosing 16 people for those 5 spaces because they all came across well would be quite spectacularly stupid don't you think? |
Yes I do agree choosing 16 would be spectacularly stupid - but maybe not 7 say? If that was the voting procedure.
A member might be undecided about 7 good candidates - so may choose 7 if had the ability to vote for all 16. I could see that happening.
Also Tactically if you had your own Group of 7 - wouldn't you be giving them a greater chance of each individually winning if you voted for all 7?
Anyway it side tracks the thread - Uxbridge has confirmed a member has up to 5 votes in this upcoming election. | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:13 - May 17 with 1118 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 22:42 - May 16 by bonymine |
Then stand down Chris as it’s clear you don’t know clearly which ‘camp’ you’re in through all of this .....
Maybe after the season we’ve had and the turmoil etc we can ALL make better decisions when the time is right ?
Maybe chill out with your wife and young family ....after all there’s far more important things in life than the Swans ........
[Post edited 16 May 2018 22:50]
|
Cheers pal, appreciate that coming from you
Even though I've got nothing to stand down from, apart from all the accusations and abuse on here
But still 👠| |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:22 - May 17 with 1110 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:11 - May 17 by Nookiejack |
Yes I do agree choosing 16 would be spectacularly stupid - but maybe not 7 say? If that was the voting procedure.
A member might be undecided about 7 good candidates - so may choose 7 if had the ability to vote for all 16. I could see that happening.
Also Tactically if you had your own Group of 7 - wouldn't you be giving them a greater chance of each individually winning if you voted for all 7?
Anyway it side tracks the thread - Uxbridge has confirmed a member has up to 5 votes in this upcoming election. |
You can see people choosing their favourite 7 people to fill 5 places?
Are we assuming the Trust is carrying out some sort of single transferable vote system? Tactically voting for a 'Group of 7'?
Lol. It's the elections for the Swans trust mind. 5 spaces. Pick 5 people. | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:31 - May 17 with 1100 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:07 - May 17 by MattG |
Actually, I'm not sure how many vacancies there will be at the next election - maybe Ux can confirm?
According to the Trust's rules " The Board consists of between 7 and 11 elected positions and between 2 and 4 co-opted posts." There are currently 8 board members with 4 up for re-election so, theoretically, there could be as many as 7 vacancies to take the board up to the maximum of 11? Or would that number be reduced on the basis that there are currently 6 co-opted members rather than the stated maximum of 4? |
It's at least 5. 4 are coming to the end of their terms and Duncan resigned earlier this season, replaced by a cooptee.
I don't know the status of the two positions elected in 2017 (Phil and Will) who resigned and were temporarily replaced by cooptees.
Logically I expect that means 7 elected positions are up for grabs, plus potentially 4 then coopted (how many are filled is at board discretion but usually all are allocated) but I'm not the Sec and the rules may say something different on those two). So, it's 5 or 7.
I've not helped have I! I'll ask the question. | |
| |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:42 - May 17 with 1090 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:22 - May 17 by londonlisa2001 |
You can see people choosing their favourite 7 people to fill 5 places?
Are we assuming the Trust is carrying out some sort of single transferable vote system? Tactically voting for a 'Group of 7'?
Lol. It's the elections for the Swans trust mind. 5 spaces. Pick 5 people. |
If you are neutral between the 7 - don't you give them each a better chance of being individually elected if you vote for each of them. You might prefer that outcome than any of the other 9 gaining a seat.
You say its the elections for the Swans trust - but wasn't an alternative voting system introduced for the legal action vote? That wasn't exactly simple was it? | | | |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 01:02 - May 17 with 1077 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust have no plan or strategy. Time for Change on 00:22 - May 17 by londonlisa2001 |
You can see people choosing their favourite 7 people to fill 5 places?
Are we assuming the Trust is carrying out some sort of single transferable vote system? Tactically voting for a 'Group of 7'?
Lol. It's the elections for the Swans trust mind. 5 spaces. Pick 5 people. |
PS Say you were in favour of taking legal action and 7 out of the 16 candidates stood on the basis of taking legal action and you had up to 16 votes.
Wouldn't you vote for all 7 candidates hoping that at least 5 of the 7 then came in the top 5?
Anyway it is irrelevant.
As you said - you only get up to 5 votes if there are 5 positions for elections and further to Uxbridge's last post up to 7 votes if there are 7 positions for election.
If you only voted for 3 candidates because say a new Group could only field 3 candidates - your ballot paper would still be valid. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
