 | Forum
Reply | Any Trust members
at 12:24 31 Jul 2020
Hey Spratty. I'll address you directly, as that's always the best way.
As I've previously stated, I'd welcome you to raise that complaint, and as I've said any member can raise a complaint about the conduct of any member as they wish.
Anyway, on reflection, I partly agree with you, this place doesn't bring out the best in people and I include myself in that. I cringe at some of the arguments I got into, even if more often than not I've usually replied in the manner someone has spoken to me. To anyone who thinks I've spoken out of turn to them, I apologise. It's not the place it was and I'm glad I made the decision to stop posting (a decision I shall be reimposing very swiftly). It's much better for my blood pressure.
If I could just make an observation, which I hope is taken in the spirit it is meant, these things work both ways. You can't complain about how you are treated if you treat people in such a way, or often worse. I'm not the only person on the Trust board you've taken personal aim at, and far from the only person on here you have too. As I say, it works both ways, and if you look back at some of your comments I suspect you will see they have been inappropriate. Or not, I don't know.
Who knows what the future will bring. Co-options are still open if you want to join the board and help progress the legal effort. Lord knows the Trust always needs as many passionate people as possible. In my experience it's a far more productive way of spending your time than complaining about things. It also gives you a much broader perspective, which I find is always a good thing. |
| Forum
Reply | Any Trust members
at 12:13 31 Jul 2020
This thread has made me break my New Year's resolution of not posting on here. Best I do though, just to clear up a couple of things.
The Trust board, like any committee, is always going to reflect a wide number of views. I don't know what the new board will think (even if 6 of the 8 are continuing), I don't know who will be in the officers positions etc, but it probably doesn't matter anyway for the following two reasons: a) the members have voted to proceed with legal action and b) at this moment in time, there's absolutely no reason to deviate from that course. That could change if something changed (e.g. an offer to settle was on the table) but there isn't so there isn't. If something changes, then I would expect that to be an issue for the membership anyway, just like it has been the last two times.
However, as you say, it is for such matters that the Board is elected, and everyone has the ability to stand. You'd have got in unopposed this year. There's still time to apply to be co-opted, and I'd urge anyone interested, even if simply on a single issue, to do so. |
| Forum
Reply | Goodbye my friends
at 10:49 21 May 2020
So sorry to hear this. A courageous last message from a courageous contributor. My condolences to your family at this time. Nos da. |
| Forum
Reply | The Leigh Dineen interview
at 11:49 1 Jan 2020
It does rather lead on to what other conditions of sale existed, given continued access to the directors box for example. |
| Forum
Reply | The Leigh Dineen interview
at 11:37 1 Jan 2020
I'm sure the contradiction between his earlier comment in the article that he had no control over his 5%, and his later assertion he retained a shareholding but then decided he would take it out, is noted. Both statements cannot be true.
Also of interest was that he knew years earlier what his exit date was. Sounds very much like a condition of sale that he retained his position and salary. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 11:34 1 Jan 2020
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. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 11:31 1 Jan 2020
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. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 14:02 31 Dec 2019
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. |
| Forum
Reply | Birch’s programme notes
at 12:11 31 Dec 2019
There's some good points here I think, and that first sentence is absolutely spot on.
Given the circumstances and constraints, it'll be about finding that equilibrium. As ever, it'll come down to money. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 10:06 31 Dec 2019
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. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 19:08 30 Dec 2019
I'm not sure I am. The issue we had last year were with answers to the more detailed questions we wanted answering. The Mgmt accounts are fine up to a point, as any are, but there are always questions.
In terms of where we are now, I can only give my opinion, and others will have their own. I think recently things have improved in comparison to the previous regime, there's significantly more communication with the fan base. We seem to have done better maximising the value of those going out than we did beforehand. Relations are definitely better "on the ground" so to speak, based on what I've heard and seen.
Saying that, the new management team aside, there's not really been any massive decisions taken during the Birch era though, frankly it's been having to clean up the mess from our relegation and how it was handled. Words are fine though, and we've seen in the past that it's actions that matter. I suspect we'll find out a lot more if we're on the same page in the very near future, if the programme notes are anything to go by. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 14:49 30 Dec 2019
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 ... |
| Forum
Reply | Birch’s programme notes
at 14:05 30 Dec 2019
I'm glad someone does! As they were distributed internally I assumed they'd been published. Sorry about that, we'll get that sorted. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 13:54 30 Dec 2019
A few times, yes. Mainly if there's been a reason to, which there has usually been. The likes of our SD and AD have more reason than me to be there though, given their respective roles and activities. |
| Forum
Reply | FAO Supporters Trust Board Members that post on here
at 13:03 30 Dec 2019
And as I've got to drive to your neck of the woods later so won't be online for most of the day, it seemed fitting
It's been a while anyway, and my tolerance levels aren't what they were, especially for rehashing the same arguments. |
| | Uxbridge
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 2128 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 2128 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.