| Independent Supporters Group on 21:52 - Dec 3 with 3081 views | Phil_S |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:51 - Dec 3 by TheResurrection |
I don't think it will be hard to change the Trust.
Get things straight on the table and get on with it. |
Then simply put the independent group would never be needed
And we shouldn't forget at the moment that it doesn't actually exist in anything other than a fledgling idea |  | |  |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:54 - Dec 3 with 3064 views | Swanjaxs |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:51 - Dec 3 by Phil_S |
True enough although lets just say that said person wouldn't take a right of reply anyway :D
We move on, little spats not needed, we all have one common goal |
Fair enough, but if we are going to get this off the ground then little digs and point scoring should be put to one side ... agreed? |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:55 - Dec 3 with 3038 views | Phil_S |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:54 - Dec 3 by Swanjaxs |
Fair enough, but if we are going to get this off the ground then little digs and point scoring should be put to one side ... agreed? |
Totally | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:55 - Dec 3 with 3032 views | TheResurrection |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:52 - Dec 3 by Phil_S |
Then simply put the independent group would never be needed
And we shouldn't forget at the moment that it doesn't actually exist in anything other than a fledgling idea |
But this is the bit I've never understood from any of you. You each have (or had) a responsibility to the 950 members, or whatever it is, and the fanbase at large, just as equally as you did the other fuddy-duddy's sat around the Boardroom table.
I think you hid behind each other and forgot that all too often. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:26 - Dec 3 with 2894 views | swancity |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:55 - Dec 3 by TheResurrection |
But this is the bit I've never understood from any of you. You each have (or had) a responsibility to the 950 members, or whatever it is, and the fanbase at large, just as equally as you did the other fuddy-duddy's sat around the Boardroom table.
I think you hid behind each other and forgot that all too often. |
Don't think they hid behind each other but it certainly looks as though it had become a cuddly cwtchy little group who had lost the plot. I've said before that there were too many with close connections to the club, too many who enjoyed rubbing shoulders and mixing socially with the club owners. Communication had become almost non existent and now it seems that there may well have been infighting. If there wasn't then there should have been.
Then the vote. Not rigged but certainly Uxbridge was well out of order with his strenuous attempts to deter members from voting against legal action and working over time with his (strange) attempts to encourage acceptance of a deal which bizarrely ignored the QC advice
Anyway, back to the subject matter. It's an interesting idea. It shouldn't be ruled out. The Trust need new blood but I sense they've got a few things to hide or at least certain individuals may have. I'd be keen to help form a new group if it was the sole intention to get to the bottom of it all to expose truths and to move forward with good old fashioned honest motives .And to help rid the Club of you know who. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 3 with 2863 views | dobjack2 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:51 - Dec 3 by TheResurrection |
I don't think it will be hard to change the Trust.
Get things straight on the table and get on with it. |
The trust is a Democratically elected organisation based on votes of the membership.
Candidates statements setting out what you stand for makes it clear where people stand on key issues.
The harder bit is that it could take 2 elections to get a voting majority on the board unless there is a way of accelerating it with a carefully worded call for a EGM.
Also need to make sure you have loaded up members who would attend an EGM before orchestrating one. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:36 - Dec 3 with 2857 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:27 - Dec 3 by exiledclaseboy |
I’m fairly sure that everyone would agree that the ideal scenario is that the Trust changes tack and becomes the fans’ voice everyone wants it to be, thus rendering any new organisation surplus to requirements. But until that happens, if indeed it does happen, then I can see a role for a more strident organisation which is unencumbered by corporate responsibility and/or internal division. I would hope that the two groups wouldn’t want to start working against each other and like Lisa, I’ve little interest in that if that’s how things pan out. All fans are equal, let’s make sure that some don’t end up being more equal than others. |
That's fair.
Agree with all that. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:38 - Dec 3 with 2848 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 3 by dobjack2 |
The trust is a Democratically elected organisation based on votes of the membership.
Candidates statements setting out what you stand for makes it clear where people stand on key issues.
The harder bit is that it could take 2 elections to get a voting majority on the board unless there is a way of accelerating it with a carefully worded call for a EGM.
Also need to make sure you have loaded up members who would attend an EGM before orchestrating one. |
The Res is clueless mate. Its amateur hour. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:04 - Dec 3 with 2789 views | TNT |
| Independent Supporters Group on 21:31 - Dec 3 by Phil_S |
I would make it clear now I have no desire to work against the Trust - that would be madness, this isn't (for me) about destroying the organisation but - I think Monny sums it up for me - its about being the more vocal part of the fanbase publically
Good luck to those who get on board and if you change the Trust to be that vehicle then it doesn't need to be a separate group
Last sentence removed as its already hit the right nerve in the right places...
This post has been edited by an administrator |
What is stopping the Trust from being that vehicle Phil? | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:24 - Dec 3 with 2739 views | Nookiejack |
If all 3 of the Res, Lisa and ECB are blocked from joining the Board then the ideas have to be considered. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 06:15 - Dec 4 with 2623 views | 1983 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 16:53 - Dec 3 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I'm sure a group of people on here tried to do this before and were ridiculed and it all went away quietly. |
This
All of a sudden it seems ok now? |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:14 - Dec 4 with 2530 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:24 - Dec 3 by Nookiejack |
If all 3 of the Res, Lisa and ECB are blocked from joining the Board then the ideas have to be considered. |
Even if they are, this should still happen. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 with 2521 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 23:04 - Dec 3 by TNT |
What is stopping the Trust from being that vehicle Phil? |
It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.
However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.
When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.
Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.
Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:55 - Dec 4 with 2470 views | monmouth |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG |
It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.
However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.
When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.
Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.
Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private. |
Perfect |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:59 - Dec 4 with 2455 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG |
It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.
However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.
When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.
Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.
Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private. |
Well said.
This will help the Trust if anything. Are you on board Matt? [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 8:59]
| | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 09:08 - Dec 4 with 2433 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:59 - Dec 4 by 34dfgdf54 |
Well said.
This will help the Trust if anything. Are you on board Matt? [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 8:59]
|
Yep. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 09:10 - Dec 4 with 2424 views | Landore_Jack |
A concern I have is the Supporters Trust trying to influence the Independent Supporters Group. I believe the independent group should express the concerns raised by all fans. There maybe a time when the Trust might disagree with the independent group. Surely, it would be best to keep these two organisations separate? |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 09:51 - Dec 4 with 2356 views | jacabertawe |
I have tried responding to Phil's PM, but am being told that he is ignoring me!!!  |  |
| Britishness...is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish. - Gwynfor Evans
|
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 09:57 - Dec 4 with 2344 views | homeiswheretrundleis |
Hi Phil
1. Please could you explain why an EMERGENCY GENERAL MEETING can't be called to oust the present board and vote in a NEW board
2. If an EGM can be called how many votes (of the current trust members) would be needed to oust the present board
3. If an EGM can be called could supporters re join/join to have a vote at that EGM or would the new members have to wait a certain amount of time before they could vote
Thanks | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 10:01 - Dec 4 with 2335 views | Shaky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:39 - Dec 3 by Swanjaxs |
Glad you've been thinking this over for a couple of hours, and all the best in your endeavours for being voted on to the dinosaur organisation that is the Swansea Supporters Trust.... but most want change, new brush sweeps clean and all that 👠|
Right. The new brush can sweep away a +£20 million asset. Moron. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 10:20 - Dec 4 with 2286 views | TheResurrection |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG |
It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.
However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.
When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.
Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.
Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private. |
Matt,
You didn't need to resign to tell us this. You could have shown some balls and done it anyway.
You had a responsibility to all members and fans, not a few familiar and stubborn faces sat around the table.
You're doing it now, NDA or otherwise, you should have told us all along.
Very, very poor form. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 10:25 - Dec 4 with 2262 views | Shaky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG |
It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.
However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.
When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.
Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.
Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private. |
"I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business. "
Sure there are legal constraints on what a shareholder that is also a baord member can say publicly. You can certainly not disclose confidential information.
But beyond that a Mutual society like the Trust obviously exists for the benefit of it's members. If you are honest with your members there is nothing to fear from legal reprisals.
That said it is possible that critical statements could adversely affect the value of the club, although that is far from obvious given it is not stock market listed. But where in the organising principles of the Trust does it say you have to maximise the value of the Trust's stake?
During the discussion on the proposed deal I mentioned i was getting the impression certain board members were taking a flutter on the money making skills of Kaplan, and saw being shrewd investors as a responsibility. That sort of thinking is ridiculous and outrageous in equal measures and should be stamped out immediately!
Yesterday Phil declared that Trust could not be reformed to give fans what they want. But he offered no valid arguments in support of that supposition. And although i value your contribution I have yet to see anything anywhere else supporting it. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 10:29]
| |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:02 - Dec 4 with 2178 views | wobbly |
indpendent Supporters Group? Nah.
I'm joining the Group of Independent Supporters. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:47 - Dec 4 with 2122 views | MattG |
| Independent Supporters Group on 10:20 - Dec 4 by TheResurrection |
Matt,
You didn't need to resign to tell us this. You could have shown some balls and done it anyway.
You had a responsibility to all members and fans, not a few familiar and stubborn faces sat around the table.
You're doing it now, NDA or otherwise, you should have told us all along.
Very, very poor form. |
I didn't resign so that I could tell you - I resigned because I was unhappy with the majority view of the Trust Board that we should (a) continue to negotiate and (b) tone down our statements so as not to jeopardise the negotiations that I didn't feel should be happening anyway. | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:54 - Dec 4 with 2098 views | TheResurrection |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:47 - Dec 4 by MattG |
I didn't resign so that I could tell you - I resigned because I was unhappy with the majority view of the Trust Board that we should (a) continue to negotiate and (b) tone down our statements so as not to jeopardise the negotiations that I didn't feel should be happening anyway. |
And you tell us 3 months later...
Great stuff Matt.
Where were you when it mattered? Collective responsibility is it? But to what degree, your resignation and bleating all about it at a later date?
Please explain, as I'm clearly missing the point here, but what purpose has that served anyone? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.