| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here 19:22 - Dec 29 with 22473 views | Darran |
Are you aware of the intricate details of what Birch said about the academy today (below) and were aware of what he was going to say about the academy in today’s matchday programme?
A lot has been mentioned on forums and social media about the future direction of our Academy. As I have stated previously, we continue to keep all aspects of our operations, not just the Academy, under review as we adapt to the restrictive financial life outside the Premier League. Once we have the transfer window out of the way I will provide supporters with a further update.
My aim is to remain open, honest and regular in my communications to supporters, whether it’s good or not so good news. But we need to get through January and complete ongoing reviews first, before I can properly update you. So please bear with me a little longer. |  |
| |  |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:11 - Dec 31 with 1341 views | Phil_S |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:08 - Dec 31 by Uxbridge |
We probably need some feature on this board when we can see when other people are typing  Sort it out ... |
Steady on now that would just be logical. |  | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:13 - Dec 31 with 1333 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:11 - Dec 31 by Phil_S |
Steady on now that would just be logical. |
Would have saved me 10 mins or so tapping away anyway, saying much the same thing.
Anyway, I obviously concur, particularly on the HNY stuff! |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:25 - Dec 31 with 1309 views | SwanDownUnder |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:13 - Dec 31 by Uxbridge |
Would have saved me 10 mins or so tapping away anyway, saying much the same thing.
Anyway, I obviously concur, particularly on the HNY stuff! |
Well done you just patronised your supporters |  | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:58 - Dec 31 with 1253 views | Algorfajack |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 22:14 - Dec 30 by Swanjaxs |
Bang on mate!!!
Lay down with dogs and you end up getting fleas!
The trust should grow some bolloxs and tell the Americans where they can shove their privileged seats after the way they treated the trust with contempt.
Message to the Trust...
Them or us? |
Problem is that there are some who enjoy the entitlement & so called privilege of being in the Box.
Should be voted on by the members next year as it does not achieve anything other than stroking several ego's. |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:25 - Dec 31 with 1194 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:06 - Dec 31 by Uxbridge |
Not as if I said to Monny I was going to be offline yesterday . And it's not as if this has been done to death before. Anyway, one final go, which is mainly just my view.
There's a couple of things I couldn't talk about, for obvious reasons, but I'll talk about the things I can. Access is relatively limited these days, has been for some time and limited to "officers", either to those who are the direct links between the Club and Trust on day to day stuff (which is primarily the SD and AD) and then maintaining links between Club and Trust leadership (which is more Chair/VC stuff).
I know from speaking to Stu, while he does have weekly meetings with the senior managers down the stadium, matchday is the one time he knows he can guarantee people will be there so is able to ask the questions we need asking. It's a small example but a couple of days ago at the Pod I was asked what's happening with the Bowling Night. I knew Stu was there, so he asked Birch or someone else, and a plan was put in place for its announcement. It's a small example but it shows how that access can, and has, be used at other times for more important things. Cath has been doing a lot of work with the club on the new Sensory room and other initiatives, as I'm sure regular readers of the matchday programme and the articles on the website will know, and I know her access has proved useful particularly with her DSA hat on for fundraising, addressing members concerns around access and the like.
From a broader Trust/Club perspective, which is probably where Phil or I would come in, the benefits are probably somewhat softer or less quantifiable. Putting the legal case aside, which may well terminate things anyway, the majority view has long been that it's important that we, if possible, develop a good relationship between the club and the Trust's respective leaderships to try, as much as possible, to work together where it's in both our interests.
I'm sure it's common knowledge that relations were pretty strained, to say the least, with the previous administration. When the changes were made, not even a year ago now, we're starting from a zero base. Mistrust was rife, and probably on both sides, but some of the same people were still involved. The Trust had stuck the boot into the club quite publicly on many occasions. That creates a certain bunker mentality, probably on both sides if I'm being honest, and that's blown up a few times, mainly due to the fact that there hasn't been the proper processes in place to nip it in the bud. I'll give an example, and may well get in trouble for doing so but hey ho. The club wanted to make a public statement on something and wanted the Trust to join in. The Trust didn't think it was a particularly good idea, mainly in the way it was proposed rather than the principle (which was admirable), so declined. Rather than discuss it at the start, the issue festered and escalated and blew up. It's resolved now but took some time to do so, whereas if the process had been in place to have a conversation at the start it would ever have been an issue in the first place and ended with a far better result.
There'll probably be some asking "Well, can't Stu do that" but, no, not really. It's too much for one person, and anyway the SD needs to focus on their fiduciary duties rather than taking on everything else. He can't take on all other aspects of the Trust, of which there are many.
My other half is a very wise person and she often says to me, Business is People. If we want the Trust to have influence at the Club, then it needs to be visible, speak to people, it needs to have the discussions with the people at the club making decisions. On a matchday, most if not all of the senior leadership of the club are there. If the Trust isn't there, then that won't happen. Sometimes for entirely cynical reasons, as we've seen in the past, but sometimes because simply we're not there and people listen to the people that are there, it's human nature.
As and when the legal button is pushed, that may well change things anyway. The overlords from on high may wake up and tell Birch et all to cut ties. They may decide to do so themselves. I don't know the answer to that. However, while we have access to those making the decisions on the ground, I believe we should use that and state our views. Take Birch's recent programme comments on the Academy and other things. One of the things we will want to know is what the plans are there, and why certain decisions are being taken. By being in the room we will be in position to ask those questions. The question will be whether we'll have sufficient information being provided (like we very much did not last year under the previous administration on the ground) and whether we agree with the decisions being made. Whatever happens, we'll let the members and fans know our thoughts in that regard.
There'll be some that virulently disagree with what I've written there, but there we go. Other views are available. It's a shame we even have to have these conversations, and I hold the former shareholders in complete contempt for that. They broke this. |
Who or what is AD? |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:26 - Dec 31 with 1187 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:25 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
Who or what is AD? |
Associate director (of the football club). Cath Dyer currently. |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:30 - Dec 31 with 1183 views | chad |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 14:49 - Dec 30 by Uxbridge |
You've repeatedly called people liars despite no proof. You've regularly insulted people. You've then complained when people have called you out for doing so, or responded in kind, despite doing so yourself. You've done it for years. I remember you running out of a forum a few years ago when you got called out on it.
Ah, what's the point. We're just going over old ground. Again. Happy New Year ... |
Running out of a forum another lie but nice sexual stereotyping. Believe me I have never run out on anything in my life and do not intend to start now.
I have plenty of proof of your lies, much of which I have raised on here. For instance tell me when I ever said legal action was guaranteed to be successful let alone repeatedly as you stated (when trying to defend your indefensible position, trying to ram home that dreadful deal which you helped negotiate with parties the Trust were repeatedly correctly informed by its members were untrustworthy).
Whilst I basically stuck to repeating exactly what (according to the Trust) our legal Counsel had told us (that we had a strong case) you were introducing terms like it was not a slam dunk case implying that our legal counsel had not given it the highest recommendation. When I sought clarification of this at a meeting (not even mentioning you) you later on here said I had misrepresented you (which I had not) but did not raise any concerns to my question at the meeting.
In fact at the most senior level in the Trust it was reported that not accepting that dreadful deal (which I understand you were involved in negotiating and which gave virtually all the power to the new owners - including forcing us to sell all our shares at a time and price of their choosing) would be going against Counsels advise. This of course was untrue.
Please provide evidence of me insulting people beyond factually and politely stating the truth. If you consider factual reporting insulting then you need to consider your behaviour.
I have suffered serious abuse on this website primarily due to my support against abuse for overseas posters and my support for Laudrup (including detailed and accurate statistics to disprove detractors) and concerns to the motivation and tactics of Jenkins and Monk. Both which others agreed with but did not receive the abuse I received. In hindsight most would agree we were correct.
Later I was repeatedly banned to stop me highlighting misconceptions that were allowed to stand re the protections of 25% ownership by the Trust and published lies at the highest levels in the Trust about payments to the Trust Director. Although my posts were nothing less than factual and polite.
I have repeatedly offered the assistance of my husband and myself to the Trust. Both respected as honest and straightforward, professionals used to dealing with sensitive and complex information. Yet you again choose to defame me whilst making up lies about the substantial and serious concerns I raised. We have always respected the work done by Board members staying behind at meetings to thank them for their contributions. But it is right and healthy for an organisations members to express valid concerns and these should be dealt with professionally, not using the Chairs website to respond with abuse and lies against members.
Even at the meeting with the new owners it was a few members that obtained important admissions from the buyers even though the Trust had instructed us not to discuss the sale. And when according to the Trusts later submission Jason lied about a number of issues (including lying to my face about knowledge of the shareholder agreement despite my repeated questioning) you and the other Trust Board members sat shoulder to shoulder with them at the top table, tight lipped about their substantial lies to the members you are employed to represent.
It is with regret (as I am no longer prepared to accept your lies and insinuations) that (unless you are willing to unreservedly apologise) I demand a formal independent investigation into the discrimination and abuse.
It is the last thing we need but I am no longer prepared to accept your lies and abuse facilitated through this website. Perhaps Phil could contact me to inform me how we proceed. I have received and accepted apologies for the disgusting abuse I received on here. Phil has accepted his previous mistakes which I have also welcomed and wanted to move forward constructively in partnership with the Trust to achieve the best outcome for our club. However given what has gone before, to give any investigation validity, I believe it must be carried out independently of the Trust.
It is interesting that the disciplinary rules you penned to make the Trust more open after previous serious failings, aim to keep the members you are employed to represent in the dark about Board members concerns about policies they disagree with, but it seems ok to abuse and lie about members to cover your own shortcomings. An interesting insight into what you consider most important to protect in your role as supposed member representative.
Happy new year to you too |  | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:45 - Dec 31 with 1162 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:30 - Dec 31 by chad |
Running out of a forum another lie but nice sexual stereotyping. Believe me I have never run out on anything in my life and do not intend to start now.
I have plenty of proof of your lies, much of which I have raised on here. For instance tell me when I ever said legal action was guaranteed to be successful let alone repeatedly as you stated (when trying to defend your indefensible position, trying to ram home that dreadful deal which you helped negotiate with parties the Trust were repeatedly correctly informed by its members were untrustworthy).
Whilst I basically stuck to repeating exactly what (according to the Trust) our legal Counsel had told us (that we had a strong case) you were introducing terms like it was not a slam dunk case implying that our legal counsel had not given it the highest recommendation. When I sought clarification of this at a meeting (not even mentioning you) you later on here said I had misrepresented you (which I had not) but did not raise any concerns to my question at the meeting.
In fact at the most senior level in the Trust it was reported that not accepting that dreadful deal (which I understand you were involved in negotiating and which gave virtually all the power to the new owners - including forcing us to sell all our shares at a time and price of their choosing) would be going against Counsels advise. This of course was untrue.
Please provide evidence of me insulting people beyond factually and politely stating the truth. If you consider factual reporting insulting then you need to consider your behaviour.
I have suffered serious abuse on this website primarily due to my support against abuse for overseas posters and my support for Laudrup (including detailed and accurate statistics to disprove detractors) and concerns to the motivation and tactics of Jenkins and Monk. Both which others agreed with but did not receive the abuse I received. In hindsight most would agree we were correct.
Later I was repeatedly banned to stop me highlighting misconceptions that were allowed to stand re the protections of 25% ownership by the Trust and published lies at the highest levels in the Trust about payments to the Trust Director. Although my posts were nothing less than factual and polite.
I have repeatedly offered the assistance of my husband and myself to the Trust. Both respected as honest and straightforward, professionals used to dealing with sensitive and complex information. Yet you again choose to defame me whilst making up lies about the substantial and serious concerns I raised. We have always respected the work done by Board members staying behind at meetings to thank them for their contributions. But it is right and healthy for an organisations members to express valid concerns and these should be dealt with professionally, not using the Chairs website to respond with abuse and lies against members.
Even at the meeting with the new owners it was a few members that obtained important admissions from the buyers even though the Trust had instructed us not to discuss the sale. And when according to the Trusts later submission Jason lied about a number of issues (including lying to my face about knowledge of the shareholder agreement despite my repeated questioning) you and the other Trust Board members sat shoulder to shoulder with them at the top table, tight lipped about their substantial lies to the members you are employed to represent.
It is with regret (as I am no longer prepared to accept your lies and insinuations) that (unless you are willing to unreservedly apologise) I demand a formal independent investigation into the discrimination and abuse.
It is the last thing we need but I am no longer prepared to accept your lies and abuse facilitated through this website. Perhaps Phil could contact me to inform me how we proceed. I have received and accepted apologies for the disgusting abuse I received on here. Phil has accepted his previous mistakes which I have also welcomed and wanted to move forward constructively in partnership with the Trust to achieve the best outcome for our club. However given what has gone before, to give any investigation validity, I believe it must be carried out independently of the Trust.
It is interesting that the disciplinary rules you penned to make the Trust more open after previous serious failings, aim to keep the members you are employed to represent in the dark about Board members concerns about policies they disagree with, but it seems ok to abuse and lie about members to cover your own shortcomings. An interesting insight into what you consider most important to protect in your role as supposed member representative.
Happy new year to you too |
Please can you expand on the detail in your ninth paragraph? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:48 - Dec 31 with 1156 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:26 - Dec 31 by exiledclaseboy |
Associate director (of the football club). Cath Dyer currently. |
Is that what the acronym DSA refers to (listed against Cath’s name on the Trust website)? | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:48 - Dec 31 with 1154 views | wobbly |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:45 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
Please can you expand on the detail in your ninth paragraph? |
It was only once you got to the ninth paragraph that you thought it needed more detail? |  | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:50 - Dec 31 with 1146 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:48 - Dec 31 by wobbly |
It was only once you got to the ninth paragraph that you thought it needed more detail? |
No, I prioritised. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:51 - Dec 31 with 1144 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:48 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
Is that what the acronym DSA refers to (listed against Cath’s name on the Trust website)? |
That stands for Disabled Supporters Association.
Cath does a huge amount of valuable work in that area. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:53 - Dec 31 with 1130 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:48 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
Is that what the acronym DSA refers to (listed against Cath’s name on the Trust website)? |
No, that’s the Disabled Supporters’ Assocation. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:57 - Dec 31 with 1117 views | QJumpingJack |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:19 - Dec 30 by Darran |
Well yes that’s been pumped out over and over again for years especially by the current Vice Chairman but have they ever actually heard anything of any interest in all these years because unless I’m very mistaken there’s been fuçk all.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the football club at the time were negotiating a deal to sell to the current American owners and nobody had the slightest inkling of what was going on.
People don’t actually think the current Chairman would be talking business to the Yanks and then blabbing about it on a match day so the Trust reps can pick up little tit bits do they?
And anyway Birch has already told someone I trust impeccably that he has no time for the Trust.
It’s a farce and needs to stop. |
Very sad if the third paragraph is true. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:57 - Dec 31 with 1117 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:53 - Dec 31 by exiledclaseboy |
No, that’s the Disabled Supporters’ Assocation. |
Ok got it, thanks ECB (& Lisa). | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:59 - Dec 31 with 1115 views | chad |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:45 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
Please can you expand on the detail in your ninth paragraph? |
Yes if I have the correct paragraph re the Trust forum including the owners
There is a recording of this meeting on the Trust website somewhere and I think it is QJ jack that has repeatedly posted links to it (I will try and find the link later) as it is considered to contain important admissions in relation to initially excluding the Trust from the sale discussions and (according to the Trust although they did not speak up at the time) faux denials by Jason to me when I repeatedly questioned him (just about the hour mark) of his knowledge of the shareholder agreement and other questions in relation to their unacceptable behaviour during the sale.
Up front at that meeting we were actually instructed by the Trust Char not to discuss the sale. It is all in the recording, although a number of us disregarded that and Jason seemed willing to answer questions on it. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:22 - Dec 31 with 1081 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Can't you just tell that things are not going well on the field.
Whenever it starts going backwards we strat getting "trust" posts. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:28 - Dec 31 with 1063 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:22 - Dec 31 by A_Fans_Dad |
Can't you just tell that things are not going well on the field.
Whenever it starts going backwards we strat getting "trust" posts. |
So true. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:31 - Dec 31 with 1060 views | chad |
Perhaps dadsarmy76 would explain why they have downvoted both my serious posts above
If you require any more evidence please ask
Otherwise I can only assume you are involved in or support the discrimination and abuse against Trust members and would be happy for your motives to be included in any investigation | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 14:02 - Dec 31 with 1033 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:30 - Dec 31 by chad |
Running out of a forum another lie but nice sexual stereotyping. Believe me I have never run out on anything in my life and do not intend to start now.
I have plenty of proof of your lies, much of which I have raised on here. For instance tell me when I ever said legal action was guaranteed to be successful let alone repeatedly as you stated (when trying to defend your indefensible position, trying to ram home that dreadful deal which you helped negotiate with parties the Trust were repeatedly correctly informed by its members were untrustworthy).
Whilst I basically stuck to repeating exactly what (according to the Trust) our legal Counsel had told us (that we had a strong case) you were introducing terms like it was not a slam dunk case implying that our legal counsel had not given it the highest recommendation. When I sought clarification of this at a meeting (not even mentioning you) you later on here said I had misrepresented you (which I had not) but did not raise any concerns to my question at the meeting.
In fact at the most senior level in the Trust it was reported that not accepting that dreadful deal (which I understand you were involved in negotiating and which gave virtually all the power to the new owners - including forcing us to sell all our shares at a time and price of their choosing) would be going against Counsels advise. This of course was untrue.
Please provide evidence of me insulting people beyond factually and politely stating the truth. If you consider factual reporting insulting then you need to consider your behaviour.
I have suffered serious abuse on this website primarily due to my support against abuse for overseas posters and my support for Laudrup (including detailed and accurate statistics to disprove detractors) and concerns to the motivation and tactics of Jenkins and Monk. Both which others agreed with but did not receive the abuse I received. In hindsight most would agree we were correct.
Later I was repeatedly banned to stop me highlighting misconceptions that were allowed to stand re the protections of 25% ownership by the Trust and published lies at the highest levels in the Trust about payments to the Trust Director. Although my posts were nothing less than factual and polite.
I have repeatedly offered the assistance of my husband and myself to the Trust. Both respected as honest and straightforward, professionals used to dealing with sensitive and complex information. Yet you again choose to defame me whilst making up lies about the substantial and serious concerns I raised. We have always respected the work done by Board members staying behind at meetings to thank them for their contributions. But it is right and healthy for an organisations members to express valid concerns and these should be dealt with professionally, not using the Chairs website to respond with abuse and lies against members.
Even at the meeting with the new owners it was a few members that obtained important admissions from the buyers even though the Trust had instructed us not to discuss the sale. And when according to the Trusts later submission Jason lied about a number of issues (including lying to my face about knowledge of the shareholder agreement despite my repeated questioning) you and the other Trust Board members sat shoulder to shoulder with them at the top table, tight lipped about their substantial lies to the members you are employed to represent.
It is with regret (as I am no longer prepared to accept your lies and insinuations) that (unless you are willing to unreservedly apologise) I demand a formal independent investigation into the discrimination and abuse.
It is the last thing we need but I am no longer prepared to accept your lies and abuse facilitated through this website. Perhaps Phil could contact me to inform me how we proceed. I have received and accepted apologies for the disgusting abuse I received on here. Phil has accepted his previous mistakes which I have also welcomed and wanted to move forward constructively in partnership with the Trust to achieve the best outcome for our club. However given what has gone before, to give any investigation validity, I believe it must be carried out independently of the Trust.
It is interesting that the disciplinary rules you penned to make the Trust more open after previous serious failings, aim to keep the members you are employed to represent in the dark about Board members concerns about policies they disagree with, but it seems ok to abuse and lie about members to cover your own shortcomings. An interesting insight into what you consider most important to protect in your role as supposed member representative.
Happy new year to you too |
Blimey. The holiday season, goodwill to all etc etc. I can't begin to fathom the mindset.
To start, the swans trust website outlines the disciplinary process and policy for members, which includes you or I. It's open for anyone to initiate a disciplinary process against anyone else so they so choose. You could initiate one against me if you wanted, as I could against you (I don't plan to, before you cling on to that). Crack on. If you expect an apology from me, I expect you'll be waiting as long as I will for one from you.
So, essentially, your accusation of me lying is regarding my assertion that you were stating that legal action was far more certain than it was in reality? I'm glad you posted that third para as it outlines exactly why you are somewhat misguided about this. The very idea that the QC gave the highest possible recommendation is factually incorrect. Even if it wasn't, you have missed the point I have always stated, going as far back as 2017. Legal action is utterly unpredictable. The very process that leads up to a case is unpredictable. Your posts were consistently implying a certainty that did not, and does not, exist. That remains as true today as it did then. But then, that was my whole issue with the argument on here during that consultation, it wasn't an accurate representation of the ease with which the Trust would get to, and win, a case in court. I could also point out that to say something is a lie requires a degree of factual content, not opinion. You really should show a bit more care when you call people liars.
As for the deal, I hope you will apologise for another incorrect assertion, which is that I was involved in negotiating that deal. I wasn't. You are also wrong that I penned the disciplinary procedures, but what's another falsehood between friends. FWIW, most of the documentation in that regard is boilerplate FSA documentation with appropriate amendments as relevant. I was involved in that subgroup, but it wasn't me alone. If you want another falsehood, I wasn't on the top table when the Americans were in town, although I did note your cwtch with Levien after the event from the cheap seats. As I'm not Phil, I won't comment on the rest of that forum.
In terms of your conduct and language on here, I'm sure there are plenty who will testify to your conduct in that regard. I recall some rather tasty exchanges between yourself and Lisa, and Phil, in particular. It's merely my turn now. If needs be I'll dig some choice bits out, but if you think I'm doing that on NYE you're sadly mistaken.
With regards to your offers of assistance to the Trust, I've offered to second your nomination for election plenty of times. I'm all for differing voices being on board, as I'd like to think I demonstrated when I asked a number of people to do so a couple of years ago. I'd like to think those I've served on the board with, past and present, would agree with that, even if we've often massively disagreed. It's easier to fling abuse at periodic intervals when you want to though, and if you could read back your posts with even a degree of objectivity, you'd be able to see that they are abusive.
Anyway, I wish you and your husband a Happy New Year. I've spoken with him before and he seems a lovely chap. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 14:16 - Dec 31 with 1009 views | chad |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:59 - Dec 31 by chad |
Yes if I have the correct paragraph re the Trust forum including the owners
There is a recording of this meeting on the Trust website somewhere and I think it is QJ jack that has repeatedly posted links to it (I will try and find the link later) as it is considered to contain important admissions in relation to initially excluding the Trust from the sale discussions and (according to the Trust although they did not speak up at the time) faux denials by Jason to me when I repeatedly questioned him (just about the hour mark) of his knowledge of the shareholder agreement and other questions in relation to their unacceptable behaviour during the sale.
Up front at that meeting we were actually instructed by the Trust Char not to discuss the sale. It is all in the recording, although a number of us disregarded that and Jason seemed willing to answer questions on it. |
LInk to recording of Trust forum April 2017 including Jason and Steve
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/07/audio-recording-of-trust-members-forum/ | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:21 - Dec 31 with 887 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 09:54 - Dec 31 by Phil_S |
Having been there personally 3 times in the 18 months since I was re-elected, I have seen a small benefit. The first time was to have a discussion with a representative of the American contingent. The second was the first chance to speak and meet with Trevor Birch and the third was a follow up to that conversation. (the opportunity to outline the stance of the Trust particularly in the balance between local relationships and ownership disputes)
I wont speak on detail on behalf of Andy but I know he has used it as the opportunity to raise concerns/issues on subjects such as Swans TV and also to discuss some items with the finance director - largely queries that he has had which can arise from the monthly management accounts that he sees.
Cath I know has pushed forward the growth and awareness of the DSA and things like the sensory room through her presence (not just in Swansea but gaining understandings of what other clubs do in this area)
And for Stuart, I maintain as a director of the football club he has the absolute right to be there every game given he is one of only two directors who tend to watch us now on a regular basis (the other being the Chairman)
From my perspective its always been a duty to attend (hence why I have only ever done it when I feel there has been a necessity) and - as stated elsewhere - I personally would not have us attending but that ia not the majority view of the Trust board (none of whom for my knowledge this season have attended) which is that the four key officers of the board (Chair, Vice Chair, SD and AD) should attend when it is appropriate to do so. This is also pretty much in line with the legal view as well
And despite that view - we need to remember that until the outcome of a legal case may dictate otherwise we still own more than 1/5th of the football club and have a director (and an associate director) on the board of the football club. We certainly have more right to be there than many of the regular attendees (despite my view on attendance)
And finally thats me out and away from here now until sometime tomorrow evening so wishing everyone on here a Happy New Year, 2020 will bring some interesting things no doubt including changes for everyone - embracing them is always key. Happy New Year Jacks
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I will attempt to tie this in with the feedback from both Phil and Uxbridge.
Phil:
I'm not sure how to read your first paragraph. You've been present three times and seen small benefit - is this a positive or a negative. Would you anticipate seeing further benefits if you increased your attendance? Or should I read it as you have been three times and only seen small benefit but expected greater?
Paragraph five - you state that from your perspective it has always been a duty to attend and then go on to comment that you would not have the Trust in attendance. I find this contradictory so what am I missing? Also, if it's the belief of the Trust board that key members should be in attendance then why is this not happening? Surely there must have been a case for presence so far this season.
I wholly agree with your point that the SD has the right to be there. On the balance of things my wider view is that the Trust should make every effort to have at least two of its senior representatives present at every home game. To those that see this as a freebie - let's just say that it's a small token reward for the efforts given throughout the year. As an absolute minimum this opportunity should be used to demonstrate that the Trust considers itself at the same level as the other club VIP's and senior officials who sit in the directors box. On the flip side I don't think it is the forum in which the Trust should expect great forward movement on open topics; it is match day after all where the focus of attendees is on a number of matters including but not limited to hospitality, networking, broadcasting and not forgetting the match itself. . Non the less it should serve as a platform to plant seeds for further development at a later point in time.
This leads me on to a point from Uxbridge. What is the feedback from the weekly SD meeting at the stadium? Is he given adequate time and attention by the senior club officials? Does Trevor have an open door policy or has he cut off all ties to Stu? Is Stu himself driving this meeting cadence sufficiently hard enough or not as the case may be? If the response to his presence is negative then is this fed back into the domain of Trust members? I for one certainly don't get the vibe that the Trust is shut out of things on a day to day basis (I'm obviously aware of the comms re failure to meet formally as part of the ongoing legal discussion). If the SD is being shut out / shut down then as a Trust member I want to know about it - this might also show the Trust in a different light to some members who are sceptical about its purpose and objectives. Finally there is the time factor to consider when trying to achieve this during the week - we have to be fair to the people performing the respective roles within the Trust. Risk and reward and all that. What we put in invariably correlates to what we get out. I am absolutely open minded about a level of remuneration for services provided but only on the basis that performance is measured and acted upon.
Thanks both for your respective input. Happy New Year to all. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:26 - Dec 31 with 880 views | SwanDownUnder |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:21 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
I will attempt to tie this in with the feedback from both Phil and Uxbridge.
Phil:
I'm not sure how to read your first paragraph. You've been present three times and seen small benefit - is this a positive or a negative. Would you anticipate seeing further benefits if you increased your attendance? Or should I read it as you have been three times and only seen small benefit but expected greater?
Paragraph five - you state that from your perspective it has always been a duty to attend and then go on to comment that you would not have the Trust in attendance. I find this contradictory so what am I missing? Also, if it's the belief of the Trust board that key members should be in attendance then why is this not happening? Surely there must have been a case for presence so far this season.
I wholly agree with your point that the SD has the right to be there. On the balance of things my wider view is that the Trust should make every effort to have at least two of its senior representatives present at every home game. To those that see this as a freebie - let's just say that it's a small token reward for the efforts given throughout the year. As an absolute minimum this opportunity should be used to demonstrate that the Trust considers itself at the same level as the other club VIP's and senior officials who sit in the directors box. On the flip side I don't think it is the forum in which the Trust should expect great forward movement on open topics; it is match day after all where the focus of attendees is on a number of matters including but not limited to hospitality, networking, broadcasting and not forgetting the match itself. . Non the less it should serve as a platform to plant seeds for further development at a later point in time.
This leads me on to a point from Uxbridge. What is the feedback from the weekly SD meeting at the stadium? Is he given adequate time and attention by the senior club officials? Does Trevor have an open door policy or has he cut off all ties to Stu? Is Stu himself driving this meeting cadence sufficiently hard enough or not as the case may be? If the response to his presence is negative then is this fed back into the domain of Trust members? I for one certainly don't get the vibe that the Trust is shut out of things on a day to day basis (I'm obviously aware of the comms re failure to meet formally as part of the ongoing legal discussion). If the SD is being shut out / shut down then as a Trust member I want to know about it - this might also show the Trust in a different light to some members who are sceptical about its purpose and objectives. Finally there is the time factor to consider when trying to achieve this during the week - we have to be fair to the people performing the respective roles within the Trust. Risk and reward and all that. What we put in invariably correlates to what we get out. I am absolutely open minded about a level of remuneration for services provided but only on the basis that performance is measured and acted upon.
Thanks both for your respective input. Happy New Year to all. |
Yawn | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:33 - Dec 31 with 873 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:26 - Dec 31 by SwanDownUnder |
Yawn |
Have a go at stringing a coherent counter comment together and let us know your thoughts.
Off you go. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:39 - Dec 31 with 865 views | chad |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 14:02 - Dec 31 by Uxbridge |
Blimey. The holiday season, goodwill to all etc etc. I can't begin to fathom the mindset.
To start, the swans trust website outlines the disciplinary process and policy for members, which includes you or I. It's open for anyone to initiate a disciplinary process against anyone else so they so choose. You could initiate one against me if you wanted, as I could against you (I don't plan to, before you cling on to that). Crack on. If you expect an apology from me, I expect you'll be waiting as long as I will for one from you.
So, essentially, your accusation of me lying is regarding my assertion that you were stating that legal action was far more certain than it was in reality? I'm glad you posted that third para as it outlines exactly why you are somewhat misguided about this. The very idea that the QC gave the highest possible recommendation is factually incorrect. Even if it wasn't, you have missed the point I have always stated, going as far back as 2017. Legal action is utterly unpredictable. The very process that leads up to a case is unpredictable. Your posts were consistently implying a certainty that did not, and does not, exist. That remains as true today as it did then. But then, that was my whole issue with the argument on here during that consultation, it wasn't an accurate representation of the ease with which the Trust would get to, and win, a case in court. I could also point out that to say something is a lie requires a degree of factual content, not opinion. You really should show a bit more care when you call people liars.
As for the deal, I hope you will apologise for another incorrect assertion, which is that I was involved in negotiating that deal. I wasn't. You are also wrong that I penned the disciplinary procedures, but what's another falsehood between friends. FWIW, most of the documentation in that regard is boilerplate FSA documentation with appropriate amendments as relevant. I was involved in that subgroup, but it wasn't me alone. If you want another falsehood, I wasn't on the top table when the Americans were in town, although I did note your cwtch with Levien after the event from the cheap seats. As I'm not Phil, I won't comment on the rest of that forum.
In terms of your conduct and language on here, I'm sure there are plenty who will testify to your conduct in that regard. I recall some rather tasty exchanges between yourself and Lisa, and Phil, in particular. It's merely my turn now. If needs be I'll dig some choice bits out, but if you think I'm doing that on NYE you're sadly mistaken.
With regards to your offers of assistance to the Trust, I've offered to second your nomination for election plenty of times. I'm all for differing voices being on board, as I'd like to think I demonstrated when I asked a number of people to do so a couple of years ago. I'd like to think those I've served on the board with, past and present, would agree with that, even if we've often massively disagreed. It's easier to fling abuse at periodic intervals when you want to though, and if you could read back your posts with even a degree of objectivity, you'd be able to see that they are abusive.
Anyway, I wish you and your husband a Happy New Year. I've spoken with him before and he seems a lovely chap. |
I think the mindset relates to you suggesting I would falsely accuse people of lying
Excellent so ignoring your bluff and bluster and dealing with your other lies and abuse later, we will commence with you in January showing your objectivity and honesty, by providing evidence that I repeatedly said that the success of legal action was “guaranteed” as you accused. I will also route out that post of yours in the meantime.
I posted again and again exactly what the Trust told us legal Counsel advised. That we had a “strong” legal case. If I have ever said that the legal case was guaranteed I would be more than happy to apologise (as any decent person would) but I never have and it would be ridiculous to think I ever would as it would be totally wrong, and obviously so. What would be served by lying to members about something so important when most of my concerns have related to members being misled.
After you introducing the fact that it was not a slam dunk case, I ventured (amusingly given the fact that obviously no legal case can be guaranteed) that a Strong case was likely the best recommendation that experienced legal Counsel would place their considerable reputation upon.
To ensure we were dealing with correct facts, at the Trust meeting I actually asked the top table if we could have got a stronger recommendation from Counsel such as the suggested slam dunk case, and this was dismissed.
Given the behaviour on this website and the restrictions on freedom of expressing concerns to other members by the rules (that you previously seemed v.proud to boast your part in but now seem to be somewhat disowning) I don’t think either of us here would want to be formally a member of the Trust Board but have always been more than happy to help.
As far me saying I understood you were involved in negotiating the deal, that was indeed my understanding from something posted on here. Are you saying you had no involvement in / input to creating the terms of the deal?
As for the meeting with the owners although it makes little difference I apologise if you were not at the top table, others were. I was not really familiar with you then but remember you were there from subsequent discussions so assumed you were with the others. Was it not you that expressed a seeming degree of regret that the Trust had not taken the new owners to task at the meeting about their lies.
You remember the Cwtch with Levien? Cut out the innuendo, more sexual stereotyping. I had questioned him quite aggressively and at the end of the meeting and in line with the Trusts request to maintain good relationships (and my own professionalism) I briefly stepped forward to shake hands with him and thank him for answering my questions. After which we immediately left and were one of the first cars out of the car park.
Language and behaviour you really let yourself down there, I have scarcely used a profanity in all the years I have posted on here and find the name calling that goes on pathetic. If Trust officials are not prepared to deal openly and honestly with issues they should expect that to be pointed out given their responsibilities. Although Lisa did tell me to F off when I raised a number of these issues with her in the hope she would help address them. When she was taken to task by another poster for her response (and presumably to cover her embarrassment) she responded that I had called her a liar (which I had not and which despite repeated requests was never substantiated, understandably as it could not be, what I had said was clearly there for all to see).
So I look forward to your examples of my language and behaviour to substantiate these further personal attacks. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
