I have noted on this board that there seems to be some dis-satisfaction with respect to emails, Trust elections, so on and so forth. It seems to me much of this would be alleviated if the full list of Trust members names were known.

Now to save the usual confidentiality argument, the Trust web-site has no difficulty in publishing the names of share-holders. Mine's there are so is that of everyone else who made a financial commitment to our club. A long an impressive list it is. I was still on the 'B' s when I stopped counting at 100. Nobody seems to object to that.

A little bit of open transparency, eh?

Edit.

At 30 names per page x 28 pages I made that 840 who were committed enough not only to join the Trust but stump up at least £50 for our club. Some sadly have passed and in fairness I doubt 'We Fight Any Claim' was in it for the well being of our club. Nonetheless that's a lot of people prepared to commit. Are those still living still members, and if not, why not?

As a trust member, I'd have no objection to being on such a list. In fact a while back, I looked for a list of trust members. In some ways it is a more informative document than who donated to the rescue package four years ago.

The list you refer to - have you got a link? I hadn't realised that it was out there (not a shareholder personally hence why).

excessbee wrote:As a trust member, I'd have no objection to being on such a list. In fact a while back, I looked for a list of trust members. In some ways it is a more informative document than who donated to the rescue package four years ago.

Absolutely.

Serious point. If I were standing for election I'd want to know who the electorate were and I would want to canvas them. I suspect in any serious election process that has to be the norm.Clearly I am sure Messr's Ward and Tanner wouldn't vote for me if I were the last person on earth. And that's fine. But an election process where only an incumbent director would have direct access to an elector, or the possibility of such access renders the election process somewhat suspect ab initio.

landinho wrote:The list you refer to - have you got a link? I hadn't realised that it was out there (not a shareholder personally hence why).

Go to Community Shares on the Trust web-site and click on share offer register.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

excessbee wrote:As a trust member, I'd have no objection to being on such a list. In fact a while back, I looked for a list of trust members. In some ways it is a more informative document than who donated to the rescue package four years ago.

Absolutely.

Serious point. If I were standing for election I'd want to know who the electorate were and I would want to canvas them. I suspect in any serious election process that has to be the norm.Clearly I am sure Messr's Ward and Tanner wouldn't vote for me if I were the last person on earth. And that's fine. But an election process where only an incumbent director would have direct access to an elector, or the possibility of such access renders the election process somewhat suspect ab initio.

Hmm... Were there to be an election then the canvassing of the electorate would surely be the process where the CV/letter of intention of each candidate is published on the trust website and emailed to trust members.

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

excessbee wrote:As a trust member, I'd have no objection to being on such a list. In fact a while back, I looked for a list of trust members. In some ways it is a more informative document than who donated to the rescue package four years ago.

Absolutely.

Serious point. If I were standing for election I'd want to know who the electorate were and I would want to canvas them. I suspect in any serious election process that has to be the norm.Clearly I am sure Messr's Ward and Tanner wouldn't vote for me if I were the last person on earth. And that's fine. But an election process where only an incumbent director would have direct access to an elector, or the possibility of such access renders the election process somewhat suspect ab initio.

Hmm... Were there to be an election then the canvassing of the electorate would surely be the process where the CV/letter of intention of each candidate is published on the trust website and emailed to trust members.

If you know the electorate, you can ensure that they all receive the relevant information. We know from this site some didn't.

Edit.

Further to this in any election candidates should be questioned. In 18 months time when Kevin Ward may seek re-election. If I were to stand, notwithstanding anything I claimed in my manifesto, he could quite rightly argue that as I live abroad I would find it difficult to carry out my duties. (Although when editor of The Argus he didn't have too much difficulty publishing that Les Scadding could do it all via Skype from the Caribbean.) Likewise I could ask him that as he is a person prepared to publish lies about me, which he lacks the probity to retract whilst knowing them to be false, whether he was a fit and proper person to have charge of our club. And the electorate could take those matters into account.

I should add that living abroad I don't think I could act as a director. And it appears having a problem with integrity is no bar to high office, ask Boris.

I think the answer to that is to investigate the few email connections that seem to have failed, rather than change the whole system of sending out information. Surely not back to snail mail.

Yeah, I don't see why the club can't achieve this. They'd probably have to inform everyone that in X months time, the club will publish a memberlist, and that anyone unhappy should cancel. But the aim has to be improving trust election turnout and getting people to run. Having a list of members would help with that goal.

First off, the expiry date of all £10 members must pass (end of August?). Any list would be constantly changing and as such would need updating, monthly perhaps. Would anyone object, perhaps so and someone could enlighten me why.
The crux of this is, as Stan sort of mentioned, there is a list, it's just not published.

We have ten fans willing to stump up £600 to be a platinum member.Their names should be known to all as they deserve great credit.

Percy plunkett wrote:We have ten fans willing to stump up £600 to be a platinum member.Their names should be known to all as they deserve great credit.

Unless they don't want their other half's knowing about it

Both new candidates Kelly and Paul stated they will focus on increasing trust memberships. Paul particularly said he wants transparency as far as business confidentiality will allow.

Is it worth sending this idea over to them?

excessbee wrote:First off, the expiry date of all £10 members must pass (end of August?). Any list would be constantly changing and as such would need updating, monthly perhaps. Would anyone object, perhaps so and someone could enlighten me why.
The crux of this is, as Stan sort of mentioned, there is a list, it's just not published.

Lists need updating. Yes they do. The point is that glitches happen. However unless you know about the glitch it can't be corrected.

By way of example I bought a bottle of water, as I was advised to do, on holiday in Egypt about 25 years ago. Wrapped over the bottle was plastic covering. On it was written. ''Do not drink this water if this seal has been removed".

You see my point, I hope.

Why are some obsessed with transparency- there is more than enough info available to anybody who just wants to support the club.
It is interesting that one of the main antagonists Frank aka Harps is a £10 a year merchant who is going to stop that. Shame there is not a £11 Membership of this forum!!
If we want a supporter owned club we need Trust members who are willing to contribute the cost of two decent pints a month.
Let’s think where we were when this Board took over to where we are now for me anyone moaning should not be supporting a L2 club with no sugar daddy - I am still satisfied with maintaining L2 status which for a non money backed poorly supported club is quite an achievement