New Trust Chair & Supporter Director

[Darran]

Absolutely perfectly said.

Why haven't you chucked you hat in the ring, you got plenty of time and plenty to say, nothing legible of course, but every organisation needs a thickie :lol:

F*ck off.

 

[Longlostjack]

As long as the Ceredigion Jacks have seen the light when it comes to HJ.

Sorry to be blunt but weren’t some of these obstructive to the legal action and lickspittles of the regime? I apologise if not.

Sorry, didn’t mean to quote that post Longlost.

No problem Mons. Might have been my memory playing tricks with me but there's something nagging in the back of my head. For once it isn't Mrs Longlost.

 

[Niigata Jack]

Why haven't you chucked you hat in the ring, you got plenty of time and plenty to say, nothing legible of course, but every organisation needs a thickie :lol:

F*ck off.

Its true what they say empty vessels make the most noises, if you stopped your silly obsessions you might be able to devote some time then, then again that ain't ever gonna happen :lol: :lol:

 

[PSumbler]

Dave is a good guy and the best choice the Trust could have made from the board

Terry is a nice guy but needs to be strong to stand up in board meetings etc - for whatever people's views on either Huw or Stuart they both did that and Terry needs to continue

I don't know Ceri so can't comment

And won't comment on the associate director position because its a token gesture position and its fair to say that Sian and I never saw eye to eye but I can live with that

 

[Darran]

Dave is a good guy and the best choice the Trust could have made from the board

Terry is a nice guy but needs to be strong to stand up in board meetings etc - for whatever people's views on either Huw or Stuart they both did that and Terry needs to continue

I don't know Ceri so can't comment

And won't comment on the associate director position because its a token gesture position and its fair to say that Sian and I never saw eye to eye but I can live with that

So why didnt you see eye to eye with Sian then was that over legal action?

 

[monmouth]

Dave is a good guy and the best choice the Trust could have made from the board

Terry is a nice guy but needs to be strong to stand up in board meetings etc - for whatever people's views on either Huw or Stuart they both did that and Terry needs to continue

I don't know Ceri so can't comment

And won't comment on the associate director position because its a token gesture position and its fair to say that Sian and I never saw eye to eye but I can live with that

So why didnt you see eye to eye with Sian then was that over legal action?

She's only five foot two?

 

[Darran]

So why didnt you see eye to eye with Sian then was that over legal action?

She's only five foot two?

Who Phil?

 

[Resolvenjack]

Dave is a good guy and the best choice the Trust could have made from the board

Terry is a nice guy but needs to be strong to stand up in board meetings etc - for whatever people's views on either Huw or Stuart they both did that and Terry needs to continue

I don't know Ceri so can't comment

And won't comment on the associate director position because its a token gesture position and its fair to say that Sian and I never saw eye to eye but I can live with that

So why didnt you see eye to eye with Sian then was that over legal action?

I suspect it may have something to do with the associate director having access to the directors box for matches, at a time when the owners were trying it on with the Trust regarding avoiding legal action.

Think a lot of people were saying at the time that we should have less access to the directors box not more.

Of course I may be well off the mark

 

[Darran]

So why didnt you see eye to eye with Sian then was that over legal action?

I suspect it may have something to do with the associate director having access to the directors box for matches, at a time when the owners were trying it on with the Trust regarding avoiding legal action.

Think a lot of people were saying at the time that we should have less access to the directors box not more.

Of course I may be well off the mark

Interesting.
I had a discussion on twitter with former Trust Chairman Mr Godden yesterday about the directors box yesterday.
As some of you may know I’ve been against it for years and I don’t get it more than ever now.
You’re suing people for £20million pound yet on a match day you swapping pleasantries with them,having a drink together and sitting with them.
I really don’t get it.
Mr Godden says that whilst the Trust are entitled to be there they should be there but someone needs to tell me other than a match day jolly what are they getting out of it?

It’s a complete farce in my opinion and should have stopped years ago when they were pissed all over.

 

[PSumbler]

Sorry been caught up on work things all day today so just catching up

On the directors box access. There was a board wide decision taken a few years back that attendance would be restricted only to "officers" which would be SD/AD or Chair/Vice Chair with the latter (outside of SD) only attending when it was essential to discussions to resolve the legal dispute. I think in my last 2 years as Chair attendance was maybe once or twice at tops. I actually think (and agree with Andy's stance) that the SD should be in the box as a director of the club as much to make the point to visiting directors that we have supporter representation on the board, I think that is a key part as well as making other attendees aware of how the club ownership is structured

Anyway onto the question in hand. A few days after the above discussion and agreement was made Sian made a request to go into the directors box for (I think) QPR away as she was in London with her son. It was rejected by the board as it was against what we had agreed. A few days later Sian resigned claiming a clique in the board but it was suggested via an email by another (current) board member that if we reconsidered she was likely to as well. The board did not reconsider. It is fair to say that it was around the time that things could get heated amongst the board as the legal sub group felt that the remits given to them were being restricted by the rest of the board who were more cautious and hesitant over the legal action. Indeed, at least two of the board members (one current and one former) had - prior to the meeting at Landore - wondered how we got to the stage where we were recommending pursuing formal legal action and not pursuing some level of negotiation we had not managed to achieve for two years.

There were several (valid) concerns from the board raised, each of them answered satisfactorily by the legal team (via our lawyers) but they kept being repeated for reasons none other than "guy in the pub told me that..." so it was little wonder that the legal sub group would get a bit irritated and I am fully capable of admitting I can be a 'fiery' character but when you are being hampered to do the job you are elected (by both members and board) for something you give up many hours a week to do then sometimes it is natural.

Anyway, some of this happened not long after one (former) board member joined forces with other (current and former) board members to try and remove me from the Chair position for my last year through secret and private email chats and where at least one board member felt that they had words put in their mouth by this person. Clearly the coup failed but it was probably at that point I decided my last year had already started there - fighting people like that isn't part of a life plan. Just weeks later the board member in question was expelled from the Trust for threatening to tell the press that he was against legal action even though the board had all voted for it (we assumed he was asleep at that time!)

This kind of shit could write a book :lol:

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Sorry been caught up on work things all day today so just catching up

On the directors box access. There was a board wide decision taken a few years back that attendance would be restricted only to "officers" which would be SD/AD or Chair/Vice Chair with the latter (outside of SD) only attending when it was essential to discussions to resolve the legal dispute. I think in my last 2 years as Chair attendance was maybe once or twice at tops. I actually think (and agree with Andy's stance) that the SD should be in the box as a director of the club as much to make the point to visiting directors that we have supporter representation on the board, I think that is a key part as well as making other attendees aware of how the club ownership is structured

Anyway onto the question in hand. A few days after the above discussion and agreement was made Sian made a request to go into the directors box for (I think) QPR away as she was in London with her son. It was rejected by the board as it was against what we had agreed. A few days later Sian resigned claiming a clique in the board but it was suggested via an email by another (current) board member that if we reconsidered she was likely to as well. The board did not reconsider. It is fair to say that it was around the time that things could get heated amongst the board as the legal sub group felt that the remits given to them were being restricted by the rest of the board who were more cautious and hesitant over the legal action. Indeed, at least two of the board members (one current and one former) had - prior to the meeting at Landore - wondered how we got to the stage where we were recommending pursuing formal legal action and not pursuing some level of negotiation we had not managed to achieve for two years.

There were several (valid) concerns from the board raised, each of them answered satisfactorily by the legal team (via our lawyers) but they kept being repeated for reasons none other than "guy in the pub told me that..." so it was little wonder that the legal sub group would get a bit irritated and I am fully capable of admitting I can be a 'fiery' character but when you are being hampered to do the job you are elected (by both members and board) for something you give up many hours a week to do then sometimes it is natural.

Anyway, some of this happened not long after one (former) board member joined forces with other (current and former) board members to try and remove me from the Chair position for my last year through secret and private email chats and where at least one board member felt that they had words put in their mouth by this person. Clearly the coup failed but it was probably at that point I decided my last year had already started there - fighting people like that isn't part of a life plan. Just weeks later the board member in question was expelled from the Trust for threatening to tell the press that he was against legal action even though the board had all voted for it (we assumed he was asleep at that time!)

This kind of s**t could write a book :lol:

Well there are a number of cats out of bags and cans of worms opened there. :lol:

 

[dickythorpe]

I'll sit in the Director's box

 

[Longlostjack]

Depressing stuff. Definitely got the makings of a good book though. Just replace “former board members” and “current board members” with real names ! . As for the Directors box I agree with Darren. Just creates problems. I can’t see why it’s important for directors of other clubs to meet a Trust representative. Has anything positive come out of that?

 

[Niigata Jack]

Sorry been caught up on work things all day today so just catching up

On the directors box access. There was a board wide decision taken a few years back that attendance would be restricted only to "officers" which would be SD/AD or Chair/Vice Chair with the latter (outside of SD) only attending when it was essential to discussions to resolve the legal dispute. I think in my last 2 years as Chair attendance was maybe once or twice at tops. I actually think (and agree with Andy's stance) that the SD should be in the box as a director of the club as much to make the point to visiting directors that we have supporter representation on the board, I think that is a key part as well as making other attendees aware of how the club ownership is structured

Anyway onto the question in hand. A few days after the above discussion and agreement was made Sian made a request to go into the directors box for (I think) QPR away as she was in London with her son. It was rejected by the board as it was against what we had agreed. A few days later Sian resigned claiming a clique in the board but it was suggested via an email by another (current) board member that if we reconsidered she was likely to as well. The board did not reconsider. It is fair to say that it was around the time that things could get heated amongst the board as the legal sub group felt that the remits given to them were being restricted by the rest of the board who were more cautious and hesitant over the legal action. Indeed, at least two of the board members (one current and one former) had - prior to the meeting at Landore - wondered how we got to the stage where we were recommending pursuing formal legal action and not pursuing some level of negotiation we had not managed to achieve for two years.

There were several (valid) concerns from the board raised, each of them answered satisfactorily by the legal team (via our lawyers) but they kept being repeated for reasons none other than "guy in the pub told me that..." so it was little wonder that the legal sub group would get a bit irritated and I am fully capable of admitting I can be a 'fiery' character but when you are being hampered to do the job you are elected (by both members and board) for something you give up many hours a week to do then sometimes it is natural.

Anyway, some of this happened not long after one (former) board member joined forces with other (current and former) board members to try and remove me from the Chair position for my last year through secret and private email chats and where at least one board member felt that they had words put in their mouth by this person. Clearly the coup failed but it was probably at that point I decided my last year had already started there - fighting people like that isn't part of a life plan. Just weeks later the board member in question was expelled from the Trust for threatening to tell the press that he was against legal action even though the board had all voted for it (we assumed he was asleep at that time!)

This kind of s**t could write a book :lol:

Well there are a number of cats out of bags and cans of worms opened there. :lol:

I'd say, was gonna pass a comment or two in response, but I'll keep any thoughts to myself

 

[monmouth]

Well there are a number of cats out of bags and cans of worms opened there. :lol:

There are so many tinpot wankers in the usual mould of the “Welsh committee arsehole” that seem to be drawn to these roles like moths to a flame. I’ve met and laughed at so many. Talentless big ego conniving perk and power driven plums, trying to make their little lives feel important. Do I sound unsympathetic? Obviously there are a minority that buck the trend.

That’s why I was disappointed when you and Phil jumped off the boat, and now Ux too, but I don’t blame you, it’s the reason I would never try and join. And the fact I might have to do some work, obviously.