Supporters Trust Statement

[exiledclaseboy]

Has remuneration for Trust board members ever been discussed?

Not in the time I was involved, apart from a brief discussion about paying the board secretary when Nigel Hamer left. That became unnecessary because his replacement was absolutely excellent although sadly is leaving soon.

 

[Dr. Winston]

In fairness, it isn't spot on.

In fairness, it is.

It's fine to disagree with the positions and actions of trust people. However, it quite often goes far beyond that. The loudest, most persistently critical people don't have the stones to put themselves in the same position and should be frequently called out on it.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

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.

Ok, I take that point. I’d had a few last night as you can imagine. But there weren’t enough candidates last month for the trust to have an election so there is a distinct lack of people willing to get their hands dirty (so to speak) and get involved. But there are many more willing to have a pop (sometimes in the most personal of ways). If the latter translated into the former things may change.

 

[Neath_Jack]

In fairness, it isn't spot on.

In fairness, it is.

It's fine to disagree with the positions and actions of trust people. However, it quite often goes far beyond that. The loudest, most persistently critical people don't have the stones to put themselves in the same position and should be frequently called out on it.

The stones? F*cking behave ffs :lol:

It is always called out, every time, which is the point of it not being spot on.

 

[Darran]

[*]

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

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

Because behind closed doors Birch hates the Trust and he’s told that to people that I know in private meetings.
Information that I have passed to Trust board members previously.
There’s no need to be hanging around with him.

 

[Neath_Jack]

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.

Ok, I take that point. I’d had a few last night as you can imagine. But there weren’t enough candidates last month for the trust to have an election so there is a distinct lack of people willing to get their hands dirty (so to speak) and get involved. But there are many more willing to have a pop (sometimes in the most personal of ways). If the latter translated into the former things may change.

Yeah i guessed you had, which is why i didn't have the "stones" to reply to you :lol:

Listen, i can understand the frustration of those that are on the Trust board, I absolutely do. I've been, and am involved in groups or committees which is similar with people on the outside, not happy with what happens on the inside. It will always be that way, it's human nature.

 

[Darran]

Over the last few years there’s absolutely no doubt in my mind Trust board members have exchanged pleasantries with people like Dineen,Jenkins,Morgan and the Yanks when they should be treating them with more contempt than possible.
Regardless of what anyone says yesterday’s Trust statement again proves that the Trust are being treated like mugs.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

[*]


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

Because behind closed doors Birch hates the Trust and he’s told that to people that I know in private meetings.
Information that I have passed to Trust board members previously.
There’s no need to be hanging around with him.

I didn’t like Birch much in the couple of occasions I met him. He struck me as a man who’s not used to being disagreed with and didn’t really know how to deal with that when it happens. I’m not sure he liked me very much either mind.

 

[Darran]

Because behind closed doors Birch hates the Trust and he’s told that to people that I know in private meetings.
Information that I have passed to Trust board members previously.
There’s no need to be hanging around with him.

I didn’t like Birch much in the couple of occasions I met him. He struck me as a man who’s not used to being disagreed with and didn’t really know how to deal with that when it happens. I’m not sure he liked me very much either mind.

Not many people do like you mind.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

I didn’t like Birch much in the couple of occasions I met him. He struck me as a man who’s not used to being disagreed with and didn’t really know how to deal with that when it happens. I’m not sure he liked me very much either mind.

Not many people do like you mind.

Yes, which is why I treasure the few who do.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Ok, I take that point. I’d had a few last night as you can imagine. But there weren’t enough candidates last month for the trust to have an election so there is a distinct lack of people willing to get their hands dirty (so to speak) and get involved. But there are many more willing to have a pop (sometimes in the most personal of ways). If the latter translated into the former things may change.

Yeah i guessed you had, which is why i didn't have the "stones" to reply to you :lol:

Listen, i can understand the frustration of those that are on the Trust board, I absolutely do. I've been, and am involved in groups or committees which is similar with people on the outside, not happy with what happens on the inside. It will always be that way, it's human nature.

As an addendum to this it’s also a shame that some who do want to get involved seemingly do so for what I’d consider the wrong reasons. There are board members (Stu aside as the argument is that it’s part of his role as director of the club) who are far too keen to be seen in the directors box or add another “achievement” to their CV than anything else.

 

[Darran]

Not many people do like you mind.

Yes, which is why I treasure the few who do.

Fair point.

 

[exhmrc1]

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

 

[Cooperman]

Has remuneration for Trust board members ever been discussed?

Not in the time I was involved, apart from a brief discussion about paying the board secretary when Nigel Hamer left. That became unnecessary because his replacement was absolutely excellent although sadly is leaving soon.

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.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Not in the time I was involved, apart from a brief discussion about paying the board secretary when Nigel Hamer left. That became unnecessary because his replacement was absolutely excellent although sadly is leaving soon.

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?