Supporters Trust Statement

[Cooperman]

With Phil in position we had some hope. Without him my guess is that the Trust will meander its way to a complete non entity.

Does anyone know who wrote today’s comms? There are a whole raft of Trust leadership who include ‘comms’ within their responsibilities.

Wibble.

With all due respect to Phil, what a load of codswallop that is.

It's quite nauseating actually.

What part do you disagree with?

 

[Neath_Jack]

With all due respect to Phil, what a load of codswallop that is.

It's quite nauseating actually.

What part do you disagree with?

This bit "With Phil in position we had some hope. Without him my guess is that the Trust will meander its way to a complete non entity".

I haven't read the statement so have no opinion on the rest of your post.

 

[A4Jack]

The trust is a non entity at this moment in time and the only way it can rebuild faith is by getting to court. They won't do that and it'll meander into further irrelevance.

We can all see where this is heading

 

[Cooperman]

What part do you disagree with?

This bit "With Phil in position we had some hope. Without him my guess is that the Trust will meander its way to a complete non entity".

I haven't read the statement so have no opinion on the rest of your post.

Ahh, so you’re not saying that I’m being over critical. Fair assessment from you as I’ve tended to give the Trust a little bit of slack.

I’ll stand by my comment re Phil though. The Trust will be worse off without him.

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

The trust are nothing more than a sham, you'd be better off giving your tenner to the homeless.

 

[Longlostjack]

I‘m quite sure the Trust is not perfect. Put up or shut up though. They‘re volunteers. The alternative is what exactly? Accept everything that the boys from across the pond say at face value? No checks and balances? How pathetic would that be?

 

[BarryTownSwan]

I’m not a trust member but do understand why the trust are uppity about the Board Statement. However, I don’t see why the trust are moaning about new funds entering our club via new Director (and matched by existing 2 directors) when they as 21% shareholders do not match this new investment or inject its own funds into our club. I accept the trust’s governance role but if the trust cannot (or will not) invest then stand aside for someone who is able (and willing) to invest.

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

I‘m quite sure the Trust is not perfect. Put up or shut up though. They‘re volunteers. The alternative is what exactly? Accept everything that the boys from across the pond say at face value? No checks and balances? How pathetic would that be?

That's pretty much how it is now mate, you think they had any say in this new member with his loans coming in. They're isn't any alternative that's my point.

 

[Cooperman]

I‘m quite sure the Trust is not perfect. Put up or shut up though. They‘re volunteers. The alternative is what exactly? Accept everything that the boys from across the pond say at face value? No checks and balances? How pathetic would that be?

Make them accountable, give them targets for commitment of time and set objectives that relate to the time allocated to Trust activity. If these objectives are not met then they need to step aside.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

I‘m quite sure the Trust is not perfect. Put up or shut up though. They‘re volunteers. The alternative is what exactly? Accept everything that the boys from across the pond say at face value? No checks and balances? How pathetic would that be?

Make them accountable, give them targets for commitment of time and set objectives that relate to the time allocated to Trust activity. If these objectives are not met then they need to step aside.

Ok that seems quite a professional approach. How would you reconcile that with the fact that the board is made up of unpaid volunteers, many of whom have full time jobs and young families? If they aren’t acceptable due to not being able to meet the objectives you’d like to set, who would you replace them with?

It often escapes notice that there aren’t many people putting their hands up. Most of the biggest critics have never even tried to get involved. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.

 

[Dr. Winston]

Someone else has told me he’s far too pally with Birch.

Why wouldn't he be? Birch is not the problem.

 

[Dr. Winston]

It often escapes notice that there aren’t many people putting their hands up. Most of the biggest critics have never even tried to get involved. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.

Spot on.

 

[PSumbler]

It often escapes notice that there aren’t many people putting their hands up. Most of the biggest critics have never even tried to get involved. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.

Spot on.

Nobody will ever dispute that - as a team of volunteers - mistakes can - and will be - made. Particularly over the last 2/3 years I have noticed more pressures outside the Trust impacting the board - more work pressures being the most notable one. And when that happens that pressures the family time which is more required and needed. But as the initial point made, we have not been blessed with a team of volunteers wanting to stand and some of that will be driven by people don't like to be criticised.

Some of us - maybe the more vocal ones - grew immune. That doesnt mean we don't listen it just means we accepted it became part of the job. One of the things I used to enjoy most about the role was the forums and the forums where people expressed wide ranging views. That was how it should be and even the board had wide ranging views which is the right thing to have.

The one thing that rankles me is that the accusation is a permanent one that "We failed to do the one thing that we were set up to do" but I maintain that it is extremely difficult to see what is coming when you have a group of people (two in particular) hell bent on ensuring that things are kept quiet and behind closed doors and even more so when those closed doors are sat behind by those people day by day and those who are being kept in the dark can also be hundreds of miles away much of the time. The simplistic part of this though is that whilst maybe things could have been done different when a group of people who always professed love for the club decide they want to be rich rather than ensure the right deal there is much less that can be done.

 

[Neath_Jack]

It often escapes notice that there aren’t many people putting their hands up. Most of the biggest critics have never even tried to get involved. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.

Spot on.

In fairness, it isn't spot on.

Whenever the Trust are criticised, fairly or unfairly, some one will always bring that up.

So then, if someone is not willing to put themselves forward for the Trust, are they not allowed to comment / criticise?

Of course they are will be the answer.

 

[Cooperman]

Has remuneration for Trust board members ever been discussed?