| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 23:01 - Jul 18 with 2553 views | swanseajack4eva |
I posted the words below in response to a question to me on the Facebook Trust Members Group yesterday. The most important priority is dealing promptly with shareholding/legal action, followed in my opinion by "resetting the Trust" as described below:
Post:
The Trust has become opaque / distant / invisible to broader supporters over time and it is not surprising that people are reluctant to join. If elected I will table an aggressive drive to recruit members to “reset” the Trust … for example one approach could be waiving the Trust membership fee for 2018/19 for a 3 month window (and refunding people GBP 10 who have already paid) … supporters would only have to sign-up with the required contact information … they would be reached through various media … online, social media, matchday programme, flyer at matches, Evening Post, etc. With only about 1,200 members the revenue lost to the Trust would only be GBP 12,000 for one year … a small investment if the membership could be significantly increased for this important year and for future years. I know there are risks with this approach (e.g. unchecked sign-up by anyone) and a Trust bye-law may need to be overcome, but I think the Trust should find a way to make ideas like this work. In my view the Trust can’t wait around for incremental membership increases to have true influence over the majority shareholders. [NB — I should add that the work of several new Trust board members over the past year has notably improved the Trust’s online presence — well done for that!]. [Post edited 18 Jul 2018 23:02]
|  | |  |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 23:08 - Jul 18 with 2537 views | longlostjack |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 22:55 - Jul 18 by swanseajack4eva |
Whether deliberate or not, this initiative can have the effect of marginalising the Trust in the minds of the broader supporter base. Of course, the Trust has not been reaching the broader supporter base very effectively recently. Like with many things in life, if you do not claim your territory then someone else will take it.
I would have thought this initiative would have been discussed with the Trust Supporters Director.
Can any Trust board members advise if the Trust was aware this initiative was going to be launched?
This initiative might not amount to much, but for maximum effectiveness the Trust needs to be seen by the broader supporter base as representing them. |
Good post and deserves a reply. |  |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 23:22 - Jul 18 with 2512 views | dobjack2 |
if any trust board members can’t see what this is they are not fit for their positions.
It is an attempt by the board to show that they are listening to fans and to show that the trust is not and accordingly irrelevant.
Wake up and smell the coffee fFS. |  | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 07:57 - Jul 19 with 2444 views | Uxbridge |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 22:55 - Jul 18 by swanseajack4eva |
Whether deliberate or not, this initiative can have the effect of marginalising the Trust in the minds of the broader supporter base. Of course, the Trust has not been reaching the broader supporter base very effectively recently. Like with many things in life, if you do not claim your territory then someone else will take it.
I would have thought this initiative would have been discussed with the Trust Supporters Director.
Can any Trust board members advise if the Trust was aware this initiative was going to be launched?
This initiative might not amount to much, but for maximum effectiveness the Trust needs to be seen by the broader supporter base as representing them. |
Yes the Trust was well aware this was happening and had/has been approached to be involved in it.
Must admit I did think it didn't need saying, but obviously the ongoing mediation process has, and is, going to have an effect with how the Trust works with the club. Both in terms of the legal advice and the effect on the relationship.
Whether this is a deliberate attempt to undermine the Trust as part of that I couldn't say (there would be different views on that, but I'm a cynical sort and think things will be presented in a way to put pressure on the Trust) but it wouldn't be accurate to say this has happened without any involvement. In fact, I'd say that the Trust has a long history in pushing for the club to meet and listen to the fans (see the May board minutes which pushed Pearlman to meet the fans, which obviously happened). [Post edited 19 Jul 2018 7:59]
|  |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 09:44 - Jul 19 with 2385 views | jack247 |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 21:34 - Jul 18 by QJumpingJack |
It looks like it could be another long season ahead off the pitch.
Did the club accidentally forget to include the Trust for this project? or
Did the club deliberately exclude them from this initiative?
Hopefully, it is not too late for the Trust be part of this project.
The likes of Perlman do not have the relevant experience to lead such a project. |
The actual project is bollocks. It doesn’t matter who runs it. They don’t take any notice of a 21% shareholder, they aren’t going to do anything substantive on the back of fans opinions. They’ll probably make a few insignificant, cosmetic changes accompanied by a load of fanfare and bluster to hoodwink the public into thinking it’s a roaring success.
The whole point of this IMO is to undermine the trust. It will probably work too. | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:25 - Jul 19 with 2353 views | Shaky |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 23:01 - Jul 18 by swanseajack4eva |
I posted the words below in response to a question to me on the Facebook Trust Members Group yesterday. The most important priority is dealing promptly with shareholding/legal action, followed in my opinion by "resetting the Trust" as described below:
Post:
The Trust has become opaque / distant / invisible to broader supporters over time and it is not surprising that people are reluctant to join. If elected I will table an aggressive drive to recruit members to “reset” the Trust … for example one approach could be waiving the Trust membership fee for 2018/19 for a 3 month window (and refunding people GBP 10 who have already paid) … supporters would only have to sign-up with the required contact information … they would be reached through various media … online, social media, matchday programme, flyer at matches, Evening Post, etc. With only about 1,200 members the revenue lost to the Trust would only be GBP 12,000 for one year … a small investment if the membership could be significantly increased for this important year and for future years. I know there are risks with this approach (e.g. unchecked sign-up by anyone) and a Trust bye-law may need to be overcome, but I think the Trust should find a way to make ideas like this work. In my view the Trust can’t wait around for incremental membership increases to have true influence over the majority shareholders. [NB — I should add that the work of several new Trust board members over the past year has notably improved the Trust’s online presence — well done for that!]. [Post edited 18 Jul 2018 23:02]
|
Word!
Hope you would consider standing for chairman on the Trust. |  |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:43 - Jul 19 with 2325 views | Nookiejack |
You have a group on the Trust Board who would prefer just to keep the headline 21% stake, as they can say we are a Supporters Trust Holding significant stale in a professional football club - in contrast to fighting for, through legal action, the £21m of current lost value. | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? (n/t) on 13:12 - Jul 19 with 2280 views | Uxbridge |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:43 - Jul 19 by Nookiejack |
You have a group on the Trust Board who would prefer just to keep the headline 21% stake, as they can say we are a Supporters Trust Holding significant stale in a professional football club - in contrast to fighting for, through legal action, the £21m of current lost value. |
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 13:12 - Jul 19 with 2280 views | Uxbridge |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:43 - Jul 19 by Nookiejack |
You have a group on the Trust Board who would prefer just to keep the headline 21% stake, as they can say we are a Supporters Trust Holding significant stale in a professional football club - in contrast to fighting for, through legal action, the £21m of current lost value. |
No such group exists. You've already been picked up on that by others this week. Carry on though. | |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:02 - Jul 19 with 2237 views | Nookiejack |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 13:12 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
No such group exists. You've already been picked up on that by others this week. Carry on though. |
I wasn’t picked up on it - the Andrew McGlaashan confirmed it.
Can you therefore confirm or not that one of the options that you are discussing through mediation proceds - is to restore all the existing shareholder rights before the sale and keep the 21% stake?
For it even to be considered as an option means there must be a Group on the Trust Board that is in favour of it. | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:08 - Jul 19 with 2220 views | peenemunde |
A good step by the club.
The trust doesn’t represent the fans, it represents its members.
So any group that represents the fans and speaks for them, without having to pay a subscription and one that doesn’t get caught up in the political side of things is a good for me 👠|  | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:43 - Jul 19 with 2204 views | Shaky |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:02 - Jul 19 by Nookiejack |
I wasn’t picked up on it - the Andrew McGlaashan confirmed it.
Can you therefore confirm or not that one of the options that you are discussing through mediation proceds - is to restore all the existing shareholder rights before the sale and keep the 21% stake?
For it even to be considered as an option means there must be a Group on the Trust Board that is in favour of it. |
Nookie, I was against the mediation route from the beginning and still consider it to have been unnecessary and probably pointless.
However, what is done is done and you have to now give it a chance and to a certain extent go in with an open mind, and listen to what Kaplan has to say.
If you don't do so, you are not entering into the spirit of the mediation and can quickly find yourself sanctioned in a court case for example having to pay the other side's costs, even it the Trust wins the case.
So let's give them a chance, eh?
And frankly if you wanted to know every single detail of these negotiations you really should have stood for the board. | |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:50 - Jul 19 with 2197 views | jack247 |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:08 - Jul 19 by peenemunde |
A good step by the club.
The trust doesn’t represent the fans, it represents its members.
So any group that represents the fans and speaks for them, without having to pay a subscription and one that doesn’t get caught up in the political side of things is a good for me 👠|
Don’t troll on this subject please | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:57 - Jul 19 with 2182 views | Nookiejack |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:43 - Jul 19 by Shaky |
Nookie, I was against the mediation route from the beginning and still consider it to have been unnecessary and probably pointless.
However, what is done is done and you have to now give it a chance and to a certain extent go in with an open mind, and listen to what Kaplan has to say.
If you don't do so, you are not entering into the spirit of the mediation and can quickly find yourself sanctioned in a court case for example having to pay the other side's costs, even it the Trust wins the case.
So let's give them a chance, eh?
And frankly if you wanted to know every single detail of these negotiations you really should have stood for the board. |
Fair enough Shaky | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 15:25 - Jul 19 with 2138 views | peenemunde |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:50 - Jul 19 by jack247 |
Don’t troll on this subject please |
Ah right so because i have a different opinion to you, that means I’m trolling.
A very strange bit of logic there from you. [Post edited 19 Jul 2018 15:46]
| | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 15:35 - Jul 19 with 2144 views | jack247 |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 15:25 - Jul 19 by peenemunde |
Ah right so because i have a different opinion to you, that means I’m trolling.
A very strange bit of logic there from you. [Post edited 19 Jul 2018 15:46]
|
If you honestly think the Americans are going to do anything other than pay lip service to a group of fans with no clout, if you honestly can’t see what’s going on here, then fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion.
If, as I suspect, you aren’t as naive as you’re making out, stop trolling. | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 17:49 - Jul 19 with 2101 views | Uxbridge |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 14:02 - Jul 19 by Nookiejack |
I wasn’t picked up on it - the Andrew McGlaashan confirmed it.
Can you therefore confirm or not that one of the options that you are discussing through mediation proceds - is to restore all the existing shareholder rights before the sale and keep the 21% stake?
For it even to be considered as an option means there must be a Group on the Trust Board that is in favour of it. |
No he didn't, he said there wasn't if you go back and read his post, and no it doesn't... It was an acknowledgement that there are fans out there who believe that retaining a stake is for the best... As anyone who has attended a fans forum could no doubt testify. It's not a policy I've personally subscribe to but there we are. | |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 17:56 - Jul 22 with 1908 views | QJumpingJack |
The Trust have now confirmed (via twitter) that they will be represented at these groups which is pleasing to hear. | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 21:04 - Jul 22 with 1829 views | jack247 |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 17:56 - Jul 22 by QJumpingJack |
The Trust have now confirmed (via twitter) that they will be represented at these groups which is pleasing to hear. |
They are fan focus groups set up to discuss match day experience, digital and community/charity. The trust should be running these groups, not merely represented at them. | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 21:12 - Jul 22 with 1820 views | BillyChong |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 07:57 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
Yes the Trust was well aware this was happening and had/has been approached to be involved in it.
Must admit I did think it didn't need saying, but obviously the ongoing mediation process has, and is, going to have an effect with how the Trust works with the club. Both in terms of the legal advice and the effect on the relationship.
Whether this is a deliberate attempt to undermine the Trust as part of that I couldn't say (there would be different views on that, but I'm a cynical sort and think things will be presented in a way to put pressure on the Trust) but it wouldn't be accurate to say this has happened without any involvement. In fact, I'd say that the Trust has a long history in pushing for the club to meet and listen to the fans (see the May board minutes which pushed Pearlman to meet the fans, which obviously happened). [Post edited 19 Jul 2018 7:59]
|
In that case will trust board members be attending the directors box on match days whilst mediation is going on? | | | |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:34 - Jul 23 with 1749 views | Uxbridge |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 21:12 - Jul 22 by BillyChong |
In that case will trust board members be attending the directors box on match days whilst mediation is going on? |
That's been a personal board member decision to date as we know there are competing views regarding whether we should be boycotting vs. ensuring the Trust is in the room, pushing the agenda of the Trust and its members. Personally, I've not been there since 2016 (not that I'd been there much beforehand anyway), but understand the other view. Truth be told, there's been times I've been convinced that staying out is the best approach but others when I've admired those who have held their nose and attended.
Going forward, obviously mediation is the critical thing in the near term. If the legal team think there's value in attending, in order to continue dialogue, then I would think it appropriate to attend. If mediation is going nowhere, then it'd be far less appropriate to attend. As the mediation process is still ongoing as I type, I'd suggest we're closer to the former position of continuing attending than not at the moment.
I've always thought it's a far more complicated issue than it's presented as though. Often the Trust is wanted to take a strong line on things whilst also simultaneously working with the club (see the fan focus groups for example). If you're not in the room it's very difficult to influence anything. That could be countered by saying the influence of the Trust is pretty low anyway, which is probably quite accurate in some contexts, but there's plenty of things in recent years where the Trust through our SD has influenced things, particularly around ticket pricing for example.
I do think there are times the Trust should have taken a much stronger public line on attendance though ... it would have helped immeasurably with some sections of our fanbase, but as always there are competing views and considerations.
I'll reiterate what I've said previously though ... for anyone who thinks there are people desperate to get in there for the perks, I'd say it's a pretty crap perk as anyone who's been in there could testify. I'd much rather be in the East. [Post edited 23 Jul 2018 10:37]
| |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:52 - Jul 23 with 1732 views | Darran |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:34 - Jul 23 by Uxbridge |
That's been a personal board member decision to date as we know there are competing views regarding whether we should be boycotting vs. ensuring the Trust is in the room, pushing the agenda of the Trust and its members. Personally, I've not been there since 2016 (not that I'd been there much beforehand anyway), but understand the other view. Truth be told, there's been times I've been convinced that staying out is the best approach but others when I've admired those who have held their nose and attended.
Going forward, obviously mediation is the critical thing in the near term. If the legal team think there's value in attending, in order to continue dialogue, then I would think it appropriate to attend. If mediation is going nowhere, then it'd be far less appropriate to attend. As the mediation process is still ongoing as I type, I'd suggest we're closer to the former position of continuing attending than not at the moment.
I've always thought it's a far more complicated issue than it's presented as though. Often the Trust is wanted to take a strong line on things whilst also simultaneously working with the club (see the fan focus groups for example). If you're not in the room it's very difficult to influence anything. That could be countered by saying the influence of the Trust is pretty low anyway, which is probably quite accurate in some contexts, but there's plenty of things in recent years where the Trust through our SD has influenced things, particularly around ticket pricing for example.
I do think there are times the Trust should have taken a much stronger public line on attendance though ... it would have helped immeasurably with some sections of our fanbase, but as always there are competing views and considerations.
I'll reiterate what I've said previously though ... for anyone who thinks there are people desperate to get in there for the perks, I'd say it's a pretty crap perk as anyone who's been in there could testify. I'd much rather be in the East. [Post edited 23 Jul 2018 10:37]
|
Andrew with all due respect I’ve been a big supporter of thd Trust since that night at the Patti and Trust Board members mingling with Jenkins and the Yanks on a match day is beyond pitiful.
When you say there aren’t perks you aren’t doing yourself or the Trust any favours.
If Stuart MacDonald had any principles he wouldn’t be near the Directors Box but he clearly having the time of his life.
I look at the Directors Box every game from where I sit and he fuçking loves it. [Post edited 23 Jul 2018 11:06]
|  |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 11:03 - Jul 23 with 1717 views | Wingstandwood |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:52 - Jul 23 by Darran |
Andrew with all due respect I’ve been a big supporter of thd Trust since that night at the Patti and Trust Board members mingling with Jenkins and the Yanks on a match day is beyond pitiful.
When you say there aren’t perks you aren’t doing yourself or the Trust any favours.
If Stuart MacDonald had any principles he wouldn’t be near the Directors Box but he clearly having the time of his life.
I look at the Directors Box every game from where I sit and he fuçking loves it. [Post edited 23 Jul 2018 11:06]
|
So profound, and absolutely bang-on! |  |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 11:28 - Jul 23 with 1693 views | Uxbridge |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 10:52 - Jul 23 by Darran |
Andrew with all due respect I’ve been a big supporter of thd Trust since that night at the Patti and Trust Board members mingling with Jenkins and the Yanks on a match day is beyond pitiful.
When you say there aren’t perks you aren’t doing yourself or the Trust any favours.
If Stuart MacDonald had any principles he wouldn’t be near the Directors Box but he clearly having the time of his life.
I look at the Directors Box every game from where I sit and he fuçking loves it. [Post edited 23 Jul 2018 11:06]
|
And it's that sort of personal bollox I really can't stand. Anyone who has ever met Stu would know he'd be much happier in the East. You're bang out of line there.
There'll be people who think the Trust shouldn't engage with the club. There'll be plenty who think the Trust should. I've never understood those arguing the Trust shouldn't be in the directors box also being the ones arguing the Trust should be more involved at the club. You really can't have it both ways. | |
| |
| is this 2 fingers up to the trust? on 11:33 - Jul 23 with 1680 views | QJumpingJack |
The Trust have every right to be in the Directors Box. They have a 21% stake in the club. And it gives them a chance to keep an eye on the owners.
Maybe the Trust can publish on their website who attends every game so they are being transparent and it avoids rumours of who is / isn't there. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
