Supporters Trust Statement

[exiledclaseboy]

I get the impression looking from the outside that there has been a struggle between the more militant types like Phil and those trying to get appeasement led by Stuart. Maybe I have that wrong but there appears to be crux of many of the Trust's problems and it appears the new board is likely to move in Stuart's direction. Maybe now ECB and Phil are no longer constrained by trust rules they would like to comment

In any committee or collective there are differences of opinion on strategy and direction. The trust board is no different. I’d shy away from terms like “appeasement” as they’re emotive and unhelpful. Fair to say there are differing views on many things but the majority view always prevails. I’ve no idea which direction the new board will take the trust in. Like you I’ll be watching with interest from the outside.

 

[Darran]

I get the impression looking from the outside that there has been a struggle between the more militant types like Phil and those trying to get appeasement led by Stuart. Maybe I have that wrong but there appears to be crux of many of the Trust's problems and it appears the new board is likely to move in Stuart's direction. Maybe now ECB and Phil are no longer constrained by trust rules they would like to comment

Great post my friend.

 

[Cooperman]

Maybe the Trust should reconsider this topic. In my experience of work based committee's, they are considerably more effective when the members are rewarded for their actions. It also leads to greater competition for places on such committee's. However, this is not simply an earning stream as members have to achieve a certain output and standards, one of which is being able to actually deliver the amount of time required to perform the role (back to my earlier point).

The responsibilities matrix also needs a tear down; at last count I think I saw five or six members who list 'communication' as one of their responsibilities.

How much would you pay them and how would you generate the finance to fund the wages?

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

 

[exiledclaseboy]

How much would you pay them and how would you generate the finance to fund the wages?

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

Well I’d never have left had I realised such riches may be on offer.

 

[Badlands]

How much would you pay them and how would you generate the finance to fund the wages?

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

The problems with that would include,
1) the impression that anyone paid would be a sell out and in the pocket of the Americans.
2) any decision taken that a group of fans (any group) did to approve of would draw accusations of 'inducement'.
3) it would be taking money out of the club.

IMO it would be better to pay The Trust an attendance fee for each persona attending meetings (work carried out on an agreed basis) and personal expenses at 'cost cover' rate.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

The problems with that would include,
1) the impression that anyone paid would be a sell out and in the pocket of the Americans.
2) any decision taken that a group of fans (any group) did to approve of would draw accusations of 'inducement'.
3) it would be taking money out of the club.

IMO it would be better to pay The Trust an attendance fee for each persona attending meetings (work carried out on an agreed basis) and personal expenses at 'cost cover' rate.

He’s suggesting the trust pays people, not the club mun.

 

[J_B]

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

The problems with that would include,
1) the impression that anyone paid would be a sell out and in the pocket of the Americans.
2) any decision taken that a group of fans (any group) did to approve of would draw accusations of 'inducement'.
3) it would be taking money out of the club.

IMO it would be better to pay The Trust an attendance fee for each persona attending meetings (work carried out on an agreed basis) and personal expenses at 'cost cover' rate.

The club wouldn't pay them unless it was to b****r off for good mun.

We're talking about the Trust paying them.

Personally you couldn't pay me enough to put up with the sh*t that Trust board members endure.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I see the bot farm are on manoeuvres on here and the other site. Like clockwork. Same people, every single time.

Spreading disinformation which soon becomes ‘fact’.

 

[Cooperman]

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

Well I’d never have left had I realised such riches may be on offer.

You could of course ask for payment in cans of Carling Premier.

 

[Cooperman]

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

The problems with that would include,
1) the impression that anyone paid would be a sell out and in the pocket of the Americans.
2) any decision taken that a group of fans (any group) did to approve of would draw accusations of 'inducement'.
3) it would be taking money out of the club.

IMO it would be better to pay The Trust an attendance fee for each persona attending meetings (work carried out on an agreed basis) and personal expenses at 'cost cover' rate.

ECB has hopefully aligned you with my thinking.

 

[Darran]

This needs some thought and a degree of benchmarking however as we are on the spot I'll start the debate with £100 per month, possibly tiered in line with the seniority of board members.

I don't doubt for one moment that this can be self funded via Trust promotional drive and a small increase in membership fees and I am certain that an increase in visibility of Trust activity would correlate with greater membership numbers. I would like to see the age demographics of Trust membership and would hazard a guess that it is orientated towards middle age and above, the Trust misses a huge trick by not connecting to the younger audience through social media channels (and once again there are multiple personnel who list IT and social media as their area of responsibility).

The problems with that would include,
1) the impression that anyone paid would be a sell out and in the pocket of the Americans.
2) any decision taken that a group of fans (any group) did to approve of would draw accusations of 'inducement'.
3) it would be taking money out of the club.

IMO it would be better to pay The Trust an attendance fee for each persona attending meetings (work carried out on an agreed basis) and personal expenses at 'cost cover' rate.

How you so fucking thick then?
Serious question.

 

[Neath_Jack]

I see the bot farm are on manoeuvres on here and the other site. Like clockwork. Same people, every single time.

Spreading disinformation which soon becomes ‘fact’.

Who are the bots?

Well, if the Trust took to communicating better from the word go (surprised we haven't had a trust bod in here yet, saying their normal "we know we need to improve on comms and are working on it") then perhaps the so called disinformation would be lost beneath a sea of truths and facts.

In reality, the majority of Swans fans have no idea what the Trust is all about, or what they are trying to achieve. There are plenty more who know about the Trust but lost complete faith in them a long time ago.

 

[Darran]

I see the bot farm are on manoeuvres on here and the other site. Like clockwork. Same people, every single time.

Spreading disinformation which soon becomes ‘fact’.

Who are the bots?

Well, if the Trust took to communicating better from the word go (surprised we haven't had a trust bod in here yet, saying their normal "we know we need to improve on comms and are working on it") then perhaps the so called disinformation would be lost beneath a sea of truths and facts.

In reality, the majority of Swans fans have no idea what the Trust is all about, or what they are trying to achieve. There are plenty more who know about the Trust but lost complete faith in them a long time ago.

Hush mun or everyone will know about the perks they’re getting.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Badlands. Jasper on the other site. To name just two.

I saw a post from Phil in the past day or so that laid out exactly what is happening.

The problem is that people won’t accept it.

Legal process takes an age. At the moment, the legal system is backed up beyond all belief due to the impact of Covid and also the underinvestment in the system for a decade.

The Trust issued a statement yesterday. Within 24 hours of the news of the Silverstein situation. It explained exactly what had happened. The Trust was part of a board meeting to discuss the possibility of a loan being made to the club which could be converted to shares at a later date. The Trust was told discussion would continue. The club issued a statement (which described an ‘investment’ and a board seat). Is that the same thing as had been discussed ? I’m not sure anyone could definitely say.

One thing that can be definitively said is that the Trust, as the second largest shareholder and as a director of the company, should know. In advance of public statements.

As is often the case, there are more fingers pointed at the Trust for not being told than there are at the people who don’t tell them.

 

[PSumbler]

Who are the bots?

Well, if the Trust took to communicating better from the word go (surprised we haven't had a trust bod in here yet, saying their normal "we know we need to improve on comms and are working on it") then perhaps the so called disinformation would be lost beneath a sea of truths and facts.

In reality, the majority of Swans fans have no idea what the Trust is all about, or what they are trying to achieve. There are plenty more who know about the Trust but lost complete faith in them a long time ago.

Hush mun or everyone will know about the perks they’re getting.

I'm not sure thetes a single perk of being a Trust board member and if there is then people managed to keep them quiet from me in so many years

There are though people who stand for the board to further their CVs or believe there are peeks and they leave soon afterwards when they realise it can be hard work