New Trust Chair & Supporter Director

[exiledclaseboy]

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

There are so many tinpot w******s 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.

I did about two and a half years and that was long enough for me. How Phil, Ux and Stu lasted so long between them has always been a great mystery to me. More so as they and a couple of others were mostly the only ones who ever did anything of note.

 

[3swan]

This thread is not a good read. The last few years I kept my membership going but it's been a close call. Reading this and the latest Trust board minutes doesn't instil confidence for renewing.

 

[Longlostjack]

For the sake of a tenner it’s surely better to fight from within and be able to vote than shouting from the sidelines with no chance of influencing anything. Otherwise it’s a green light for the lackeys and wannabe celebs to manage a 21% shareholding in our club.

 

[3swan]

For the sake of a tenner it’s surely better to fight from within and be able to vote than shouting from the sidelines with no chance of influencing anything. Otherwise it’s a green light for the lackeys and wannabe celebs to manage a 21% shareholding in our club.

That is the only reason left at the moment. £5 for some of us

 

[Darran]

This thread is not a good read. The last few years I kept my membership going but it's been a close call. Reading this and the latest Trust board minutes doesn't instil confidence for renewing.

I’ve renewed Clive but I agree with everything you’ve said.
I can’t see me renewing this time next year as things stand at the moment.

 

[Darran]

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:

This is so disappointing to read.
Not good at all is it?

 

[JackSomething]

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

There are so many tinpot w******s 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.

I've done a bit of community development work over the years and some of the people I've met on community councils have been worse than the biggest civil service jobsworths the Daily Mail can invent. When the leader of a Swansea area community council turned up for a very small media event wearing a chain of office that rivalled the one worn by the mayor of Swansea, that was the final straw. Happy to leave that field behind and never return.

 

[3swan]

This thread is not a good read. The last few years I kept my membership going but it's been a close call. Reading this and the latest Trust board minutes doesn't instil confidence for renewing.

I’ve renewed Clive but I agree with everything you’ve said.
I can’t see me renewing this time next year as things stand at the moment.

I most likely will as I still believe A supporters voice is needed. Early days for the new board so time will tell, but same as you, next year?

 

[PSumbler]

I said this to someone last night but I firmly believe in the concept of a Trust and therefore will likely always renew - it's not about the people that operate it but the concept of it for me

Maybe there were things in my post I should have kept in my head but I also would say that Dave is the best guy within that board to lead the organisation, it will be a challenge for the group as a whole who have probably lost more than 50 years combined experience over the past two years but sometimes that may prove to be no bad thing.

The key is that each of them have to be there for the right reasons, we all know what those right reasons should be - the supporters interest

 

[3swan]

I said this to someone last night but I firmly believe in the concept of a Trust and therefore will likely always renew - it's not about the people that operate it but the concept of it for me

Maybe there were things in my post I should have kept in my head but I also would say that Dave is the best guy within that board to lead the organisation, it will be a challenge for the group as a whole who have probably lost more than 50 years combined experience over the past two years but sometimes that may prove to be no bad thing.

The key is that each of them have to be there for the right reasons, we all know what those right reasons should be - the supporters interest

As I've said it's early days. One thing that must be at the forefront is the legal issue. Enough chances have been given and a mandate is in place from the membership. Any doubts from any member of the new board should not have any baring on proceedings it must now come to a head.

 

[PSumbler]

I said this to someone last night but I firmly believe in the concept of a Trust and therefore will likely always renew - it's not about the people that operate it but the concept of it for me

Maybe there were things in my post I should have kept in my head but I also would say that Dave is the best guy within that board to lead the organisation, it will be a challenge for the group as a whole who have probably lost more than 50 years combined experience over the past two years but sometimes that may prove to be no bad thing.

The key is that each of them have to be there for the right reasons, we all know what those right reasons should be - the supporters interest

As I've said it's early days. One thing that must be at the forefront is the legal issue. Enough chances have been given and a mandate is in place from the membership. Any doubts from any member of the new board should not have any baring on proceedings it must now come to a head.

But ideally not publicly which happened with one of the board members who stood down. That creates a perceived weakness that the sellouts and buyers may try to exploit?

The board should work as a collective - they work with a majority. But, on this occasion, with a members mandate, that decision has been taken.

I can't tell you anything on that front I am afraid, I was "helping" with advice/input last year but I think I may have been removed. I only think as nobody has told me :lol:

 

[3swan]

As I've said it's early days. One thing that must be at the forefront is the legal issue. Enough chances have been given and a mandate is in place from the membership. Any doubts from any member of the new board should not have any baring on proceedings it must now come to a head.

But ideally not publicly which happened with one of the board members who stood down. That creates a perceived weakness that the sellouts and buyers may try to exploit?

The board should work as a collective - they work with a majority. But, on this occasion, with a members mandate, that decision has been taken.

I can't tell you anything on that front I am afraid, I was "helping" with advice/input last year but I think I may have been removed. I only think as nobody has told me :lol:

I'll leave it there. As you say a sign of weakness could be picked up on even if it is one of two individuals

 

[monmouth]

I hope I’m misreading between the lines here because what I’m imagining is we have the Hobson choice best of a poor bunch as chair, a wanting to please jester as SD, self important nonentities as backup and all the oomph behind the legal action removed and excluded

Oh well they’ll only be controlling 21% of the club or £15m quid or so.

 

[3swan]

I hope I’m misreading between the lines here because what I’m imagining is we have the Hobson choice best of a poor bunch as chair, a wanting to please jester as SD, self important nonentities as backup and all the oomph behind the legal action removed and excluded

Oh well they’ll only be controlling 21% of the club or £15m quid or so.

Are you reading my PM's as I used oomph as well

 

[monmouth]

I hope I’m misreading between the lines here because what I’m imagining is we have the Hobson choice best of a poor bunch as chair, a wanting to please jester as SD, self important nonentities as backup and all the oomph behind the legal action removed and excluded

Oh well they’ll only be controlling 21% of the club or £15m quid or so.

Are you reading my PM's as I used oomph as well

Big brother is watching you.