| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here 19:22 - Dec 29 with 22818 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 10:34 - Jan 1 with 1108 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:27 - Jan 1 by Cooperman |
I’m trying to determine if it’s deemed to be a perk for your Trust colleagues (which I don’t believe it is). |
I’ve never been in there and no intention of doing so but I can genuinely say that I don’t believe the four people who currently attend (not all at the same time I hasten to add) see it as a “perk”. |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:39 - Jan 1 with 1093 views | Dr_Winston |
Surely if people expect the Trust to be considered an equal part of the management and decision making process of the club, then a presence in the directors box during games is pretty much essential? |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:40 - Jan 1 with 1090 views | Cooperman |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:39 - Jan 1 by Dr_Winston |
Surely if people expect the Trust to be considered an equal part of the management and decision making process of the club, then a presence in the directors box during games is pretty much essential? |
I agree. |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:48 - Jan 1 with 1067 views | thornabyswan |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:40 - Jan 1 by Cooperman |
I agree. |
I would if we had transparent owners.
But this lot are leading the Trust on a merry dance.
It should go to a members vote |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:49 - Jan 1 with 1065 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:39 - Jan 1 by Dr_Winston |
Surely if people expect the Trust to be considered an equal part of the management and decision making process of the club, then a presence in the directors box during games is pretty much essential? |
Of course it is.
When (if?) legal action is launched it will be interesting to see the reaction of the club to the Trust Director. Will they try to ban him from attending meetings and taking a seat in the directors‘ box? Still legally entitled to those things I would say. Will they cut off all contact with a 21% shareholder? It may be a time for the Trust Director to be as bloody minded as possible and to attend everything he is entitled to attend. He will need to be strong. |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:58 - Jan 1 with 1042 views | 3swan |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:49 - Jan 1 by Joe_bradshaw |
Of course it is.
When (if?) legal action is launched it will be interesting to see the reaction of the club to the Trust Director. Will they try to ban him from attending meetings and taking a seat in the directors‘ box? Still legally entitled to those things I would say. Will they cut off all contact with a 21% shareholder? It may be a time for the Trust Director to be as bloody minded as possible and to attend everything he is entitled to attend. He will need to be strong. |
With potentially a courts case in the future the Trust has to be seen to be playing by the rules and not building walls, whether we agree or not is another matter | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:02 - Jan 1 with 1035 views | Phil_S |
| 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. |
Sorry just catching up this morning so will pick up on the first few points.
In terms of your first question, I would say a positive if I was to reflect fully. However, increasing my attendance I don't think would add benefits unless attendance was for a specific reason. Largely over my tenure on the board I have been reluctant to attend too often unless there was specific reasons for doing so. This season was specific reasons and - especially with a new man at the helm - there was a benefit to doing so although it is fair to say that on matchday the chances to discuss anything in huge depth are limited but definitely the chance to set up those discussions if appropriate. I also think it can serve as a good reminder of the presence of the Trust something that certain people clearly forgot in a key period of our history.
On your questions on a paragraph 5. I probably wasn't clear enough in my full belief so apologies - I do believe there should be a case in point for Trust reps to attend the board but when there is a specific need. If for example at the next home game there was nothing of importance that required an attendance then don't take it up. I do believe that is different for Stuart but - as I alluded to - the other three who may also attend have done so with key aims to achieve from that. Contrary to any belief, the experience is generally not that enjoyable for any football fan. That I guess is why I say it is a duty to attend (i.e. when required) rather than a privilege/perk.
I take your point as two people attending but I retain a belief that this should only happen if there is a specific need or an aim to get something out of it.
In terms of stuart's weekly visit then I believe (from what he and others have suggested) that he has an open door to all of the management team at the stadium (outside naturaly of Steve Cooper and his team which isn't something we should have) He is normally sent in with some key questions to ask beyond the day to day things 0=- for example this week would have been the post about the lad and his grandfather and also he is working on comms for the increased (it seems) checking of tickets in the North East corner. In terms of work for the trust there isn't a single person on the board who puts more into it than Stuart and he is a big believer in a strong relationship at local level which we have tried to separate completely from the legal case that is building in the background |  | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:19 - Jan 1 with 1004 views | Swanjaxs |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 10:39 - Jan 1 by Dr_Winston |
Surely if people expect the Trust to be considered an equal part of the management and decision making process of the club, then a presence in the directors box during games is pretty much essential? |
An equal part of the club...
The same Trust that was excluded from any discussion about the sale of the club they represent?
Keep the Americans at arms length would be my advice 👠|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:21 - Jan 1 with 1000 views | Phil_S |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:19 - Jan 1 by Swanjaxs |
An equal part of the club...
The same Trust that was excluded from any discussion about the sale of the club they represent?
Keep the Americans at arms length would be my advice 👠|
Given they have only attended one game this season then they couldn't be at any more arms length then they already are  | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:25 - Jan 1 with 980 views | Swanjaxs |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:21 - Jan 1 by Phil_S |
Given they have only attended one game this season then they couldn't be at any more arms length then they already are |
Fair ðŸ‘
Ok then
Keep the puppet master Birch at arms length | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:27 - Jan 1 with 975 views | Badlands |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:21 - Jan 1 by Phil_S |
Given they have only attended one game this season then they couldn't be at any more arms length then they already are |
? |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:31 - Jan 1 with 968 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 18:20 - Dec 31 by londonlisa2001 |
As I’ve explained previously, I was not remotely embarrassed to have told you to f*** off.
It was the very least you deserved after you’d again accused me of lying about my intentions, motives and actions.
I’ve already provided you with the proof on a number of occasions. You chose to ignore it as you do every time your abhorrent accusations are called out. |
This. And this is where I bow out on this one. It seems someone thinks they can say absolutely anything, without being called out on it, so long as there aren't profanities in it. Which is patently silly. |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:34 - Jan 1 with 959 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:02 - Jan 1 by Phil_S |
Sorry just catching up this morning so will pick up on the first few points.
In terms of your first question, I would say a positive if I was to reflect fully. However, increasing my attendance I don't think would add benefits unless attendance was for a specific reason. Largely over my tenure on the board I have been reluctant to attend too often unless there was specific reasons for doing so. This season was specific reasons and - especially with a new man at the helm - there was a benefit to doing so although it is fair to say that on matchday the chances to discuss anything in huge depth are limited but definitely the chance to set up those discussions if appropriate. I also think it can serve as a good reminder of the presence of the Trust something that certain people clearly forgot in a key period of our history.
On your questions on a paragraph 5. I probably wasn't clear enough in my full belief so apologies - I do believe there should be a case in point for Trust reps to attend the board but when there is a specific need. If for example at the next home game there was nothing of importance that required an attendance then don't take it up. I do believe that is different for Stuart but - as I alluded to - the other three who may also attend have done so with key aims to achieve from that. Contrary to any belief, the experience is generally not that enjoyable for any football fan. That I guess is why I say it is a duty to attend (i.e. when required) rather than a privilege/perk.
I take your point as two people attending but I retain a belief that this should only happen if there is a specific need or an aim to get something out of it.
In terms of stuart's weekly visit then I believe (from what he and others have suggested) that he has an open door to all of the management team at the stadium (outside naturaly of Steve Cooper and his team which isn't something we should have) He is normally sent in with some key questions to ask beyond the day to day things 0=- for example this week would have been the post about the lad and his grandfather and also he is working on comms for the increased (it seems) checking of tickets in the North East corner. In terms of work for the trust there isn't a single person on the board who puts more into it than Stuart and he is a big believer in a strong relationship at local level which we have tried to separate completely from the legal case that is building in the background |
That last para really is spot on. Stu does a shit ton of stuff and does a very good job IMO. He gets some stick for not being active online, but you won't find someone more active amongst the fan base in person. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:34 - Jan 1 with 956 views | NotLoyal |
We have a trust that owns over a fifth of the club and has little or no say in anything that matters or happens. All they can hope for is a sniff of the pot when this lot of chancers sell the club on. Again they will have no say in that either. Embarrassing. |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:25 - Jan 1 with 909 views | Phil_S |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:34 - Jan 1 by NotLoyal |
We have a trust that owns over a fifth of the club and has little or no say in anything that matters or happens. All they can hope for is a sniff of the pot when this lot of chancers sell the club on. Again they will have no say in that either. Embarrassing. |
Indeed and we all know who made that happen with their collusion yet it seems to be all our fault | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:27 - Jan 1 with 899 views | NotLoyal |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:25 - Jan 1 by Phil_S |
Indeed and we all know who made that happen with their collusion yet it seems to be all our fault |
I personally don't believe that's the case though, again my only criticism is the lack of hope regards legal action. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:47 - Jan 1 with 860 views | BillyChong |
Would we be any further along if the trust hadn’t advised against legal action in the first vote? A glaring error which permanently tarnished fan power IMO. Are the legal bods charging us whilst awaiting a return from sickness/a replacement lawyer? | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:57 - Jan 1 with 846 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:47 - Jan 1 by BillyChong |
Would we be any further along if the trust hadn’t advised against legal action in the first vote? A glaring error which permanently tarnished fan power IMO. Are the legal bods charging us whilst awaiting a return from sickness/a replacement lawyer? |
As has now been stated three or four times, no one is ‘waiting’ for anything.
There was a short delay but the work is progressing. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:24 - Jan 1 with 820 views | waynekerr55 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 12:57 - Jan 1 by londonlisa2001 |
As has now been stated three or four times, no one is ‘waiting’ for anything.
There was a short delay but the work is progressing. |
To give some context- it took me and my neighbours 3.5 years to deal with a poxy Freehold issue (worth 22k). Add in chronic underfunding for the justice system.
Yes, well I wish I'd voted for legal action last time but the past is the past. That said, given the alleged withdrawal of the offer by the Americans now adds in the Trust's favour |  |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:26 - Jan 1 with 811 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:24 - Jan 1 by waynekerr55 |
To give some context- it took me and my neighbours 3.5 years to deal with a poxy Freehold issue (worth 22k). Add in chronic underfunding for the justice system.
Yes, well I wish I'd voted for legal action last time but the past is the past. That said, given the alleged withdrawal of the offer by the Americans now adds in the Trust's favour |
There’s no alleged withdrawal. That the offer was withdrawn by the owners is a statement of fact. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:32 - Jan 1 with 801 views | waynekerr55 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 13:26 - Jan 1 by exiledclaseboy |
There’s no alleged withdrawal. That the offer was withdrawn by the owners is a statement of fact. |
I wanted to be cautious - given that I'm not party to the facts | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:40 - Jan 1 with 669 views | Nookiejack |
Yanks took over July 1016 before we know it - it will be 4 years since the Takeover.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36849464
If Martin Morgan, Brian Katzen or Huw Jenkins had been excluded from the sale - do you think it would have taken them 4 years to sort this out?
Trust would already have circa £15m in the bank and a residual 5% stake. Could have saved the academy if we wanted to now.
Yet all that was important was the free booze and food in the Director's box.
4 years later............. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:52 - Jan 1 with 638 views | IAN05 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 11:34 - Jan 1 by Uxbridge |
That last para really is spot on. Stu does a shit ton of stuff and does a very good job IMO. He gets some stick for not being active online, but you won't find someone more active amongst the fan base in person. |
Agree with all that, but there really can be no excuses for not sharing info on some of the work he does. It cannot be right that the Supporter Director doesn’t communicate with fans especially when he is meeting weekly with people. | | | |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:59 - Jan 1 with 622 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:52 - Jan 1 by IAN05 |
Agree with all that, but there really can be no excuses for not sharing info on some of the work he does. It cannot be right that the Supporter Director doesn’t communicate with fans especially when he is meeting weekly with people. |
I agree. After all, he’s there representing the supporters so a failure to inform those that he is representing is not good. | |
| |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 18:06 - Jan 1 with 601 views | waynekerr55 |
| FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here on 17:40 - Jan 1 by Nookiejack |
Yanks took over July 1016 before we know it - it will be 4 years since the Takeover.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36849464
If Martin Morgan, Brian Katzen or Huw Jenkins had been excluded from the sale - do you think it would have taken them 4 years to sort this out?
Trust would already have circa £15m in the bank and a residual 5% stake. Could have saved the academy if we wanted to now.
Yet all that was important was the free booze and food in the Director's box.
4 years later............. |
Let's not be disingenuous here. 1 year to 15 months was spent negotiating in good faith and an agreement was reached, which the Americans subsequently reneged on.
Litigation isn't simple as go to court. Has it taken too long - yes. But wouldn't you rather the Trust followed the process to the letter and got it right rather than rushing in? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
