Chris Davis wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:50 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:18 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:06 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

To me I am the wrong age, simply a silver haired tw@t is not someone who SHOULD be the voice of those who now need to lead the trust into the future. Its as simple as that, forget the past, forget what drove people to be members, and start a completely blank page, and see what happens. Obviously I too have the baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

So hardly in a position to moan about those who will shape the future for the trust or those who will undoubtedly seek to influence that from outside.

You, like me, have decided not to join the SG so maybe best to consider the output when available and act accordingly.

I understand entirely what you are saying, but it is not the SG that will shape anything, just the questions. And as we have heard a few times from the new darling, it is framed by what can be delivered. That is just how it is, not his fault as such, but without a mindset change, there is no change.......

I am not the one to lead that, but hopefully I can inspire those who can to ignore the problems of a membership who think ignore is the best policy to keep control. But control of what?

Controlling the questions is key. If you ask the right questions you won't get the "wrong" answers. Getting the answers you want shapes the future your way.

Any good consultant works back from the answers the client wants to develop a terms of reference from which to work in order to get those answers. This is the same thing, once the questions are set, the outcome is inevitable.

As I have previously written and as I am sure you appreciate, it is going to be very difficult to create simple questions in a survey for things that are quite complicated. For me, other methods should be used in conjunction with a survey to guage the opinion of Trust members. However, I cannot see how there will be time to do such a wider exercise because there is only 5 weeks between now and the date the Notice of the SGM has to go out. And of course the SG has not even been formed yet.

And, for the record, I would like to see the dissolution of the Trust to be on the consultation agenda. However, and I think this an example of the danger of asking 'simple' questions such as, for example, "Do you want the Trust to be dissolved?" that the consequences of a 'Yes' or 'No' answer is not sufficiently aired so that any decision based on a popular vote is very likely to be seriously under informed and therefore relatively useless for making significant and important decisions.

Also, and I realise that it is not from you, I don't think many people have referred to me as a ' a darling' in the the past and particularly in a professional context. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Chris Davis wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:50 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:18 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 8:06 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:47 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:06 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 4:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

Amberexile wrote: March 5th, 2024, 2:53 pm

When the Trust bought shares with the funds from the community shares issue, it needed a resolution to be passed at the AGM to permit the sale of those shares. This is the same as the resolution that was passed last year but doesn't seem to have been used, although I guess if HJ has invested in the club since becoming involved as expected, it is possible that he has received shares in return. He could also have made a donation or loaned that money etc.

The club could have passed a resolution that made it clear they were selling shares to the trust and even though there was little visible separation between club and trust I don't see anything untoward with doing that. So maybe they just became complacent when they got into power?

I don't think many people will be interested in the trust doing something that doesn't funnel their funds through the club accounts. There may be an appetite for the appearance that trust funds are being used in a certain way such as to help fund the academy but that will only be window dressing as the transfer of funds will be arranged to smooth out cashflow.

I largely agree, but differ that it is complacent when it would appear that it was some sort of policy, and thus there was some reasoning behind it. To me it's similar to HJ just investing, rather than buying the trust's shares. Possibly that is something to do with supporters trust advice, or even tax, as the shares were originally gifted.

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.
He knew he couldn't do that, but it is the old trade union tactic of demanding more than you think you can achieve, and attack everyone for not giving....

It's been the same tactics for decades, simply attack don't worry about achieving, that's not important.

And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

To me WHAT the trust can achieve is what is vital. Not that the trust has a wad of cash that it can use as power.......its my ball etc etc....

When you mentioned the community share issue, it was 9 years ago. Kids don't buy shares, so the youngest fans buying community shares are in their 30's now. That's a large amount of County fans not part of whatever the trust shares could achieve in terms of representation.......

The trust voting membership are still focusing on openness as the goal, not on what actually can be achieved. It's constantly looking backwards to a time when unions had power. It just needs to stop attacking everyone and everything, see that policy as the failure it is.........and actually discuss the future with those who are simply focused on the future.

The trust is setting up a steering group to discuss the future of the trust. That sounds pretty much focused on the future to me.

Until there is some output from that steering group it doesn't make much sense to make assumptions about what other trust members are focused on, especially based on the comments of one or two people who may or may not be members themselves.

It is a trust steering group, and the trust have only just voted upon more openness...........

They are playing to a certain audience, a mindset if you like, who still live as if if was 40 years ago.

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, and the Trust's new darling is a legal bod who has decided unilaterally that the trust must put all money into the community........

Of course it is a trust steering group, the purpose is to decide on the future of the trust. Perhaps it will bring forth Juniper berries?

If you are a member, you were free to join the steering group and help to set the agenda. Stan as far as I am aware is not a member of the trust so I would assume has not joined the steering group and does not represent the trust even as a single member.

Are you on the steering group?

To me I am the wrong age, simply a silver haired tw@t is not someone who SHOULD be the voice of those who now need to lead the trust into the future. Its as simple as that, forget the past, forget what drove people to be members, and start a completely blank page, and see what happens. Obviously I too have the baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

So hardly in a position to moan about those who will shape the future for the trust or those who will undoubtedly seek to influence that from outside.

You, like me, have decided not to join the SG so maybe best to consider the output when available and act accordingly.

I understand entirely what you are saying, but it is not the SG that will shape anything, just the questions. And as we have heard a few times from the new darling, it is framed by what can be delivered. That is just how it is, not his fault as such, but without a mindset change, there is no change.......

I am not the one to lead that, but hopefully I can inspire those who can to ignore the problems of a membership who think ignore is the best policy to keep control. But control of what?

Controlling the questions is key. If you ask the right questions you won't get the "wrong" answers. Getting the answers you want shapes the future your way.

Any good consultant works back from the answers the client wants to develop a terms of reference from which to work in order to get those answers. This is the same thing, once the questions are set, the outcome is inevitable.

As I have previously written and as I am sure you appreciate, it is going to be very difficult to create simple questions in a survey for things that are quite complicated. For me, other methods should be used in conjunction with a survey to guage the opinion of Trust members. However, I cannot see how there will be time to do such a wider exercise because there is only 5 weeks between now and the date the Notice of the SGM has to go out. And of course the SG has not even been formed yet.

And, for the record, I would like to see the dissolution of the Trust to be on the consultation agenda. However, and I think this an example of the danger of asking 'simple' questions such as, for example, "Do you want the Trust to be dissolved?" that the consequences of a 'Yes' or 'No' answer is not sufficiently aired so that any decision based on a popular vote is very likely to be seriously under informed and therefore relatively useless for making significant and important decisions.

Also, and I realise that it is not from you, I don't think many people have referred to me as a ' a darling' in the the past and particularly in a professional context. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 3:49 pm

The problem is the voting trust's mindset. If you remember, Stan was the darling because he would fight for his Stanisfesto if elected that would bring openness for all, right down to players contract terms.


And ultimately listening to Stan has achieved precisely what? That attacking gets you no where? Even down to trying to stop this thread developing into a discussion on the future. More views than ever.......

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 6:29 pm

You have foe'd Stan, but he is still talking legal Stuff from the past, along with Dickensien monetary values, nothing to do with the future. His side kicks have been trying to close down this thread, .

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 6:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Who has been obsessed with attacking the club and trust on this forum, and doesn't actually watch any games?..............because he lives away and watches his local team..........what a pointless action, from an irrelevance........

But the mindset that thinks that players wages should be made public, continues and votes for another legal bod to legislate for openness.

Openness in the form of putting the question should the trust be dissolved? in the certain knowledge that a trust membership won't consider it, but still wants to keep control of trust money via his decision that it has to be spent on the community.........

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 7:54 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 6:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Who has been obsessed with attacking the club and trust on this forum, and doesn't actually watch any games?..............because he lives away and watches his local team..........what a pointless action, from an irrelevance........

But the mindset that thinks that players wages should be made public, continues and votes for another legal bod to legislate for openness.

Openness in the form of putting the question should the trust be dissolved? in the certain knowledge that a trust membership won't consider it, but still wants to keep control of trust money via his decision that it has to be spent on the community.........

You do understand how the views counter works?

You alone probably account for 10,000 of the "views". In fact, you could sit at your desk all day hitting F5 and every time you did that would count as another view.

Such is your perilous mental state and unusual desire to prove points that only you seem to understand, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you've been doing.

I mean this with the best of intent now, whatever points you're trying to make aren't needed anymore. Just go and spend time with your family and friends and move on with your life.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 8:52 am

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 7:54 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 6:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Who has been obsessed with attacking the club and trust on this forum, and doesn't actually watch any games?..............because he lives away and watches his local team..........what a pointless action, from an irrelevance........

But the mindset that thinks that players wages should be made public, continues and votes for another legal bod to legislate for openness.

Openness in the form of putting the question should the trust be dissolved? in the certain knowledge that a trust membership won't consider it, but still wants to keep control of trust money via his decision that it has to be spent on the community.........

You do understand how the views counter works?

You alone probably account for 10,000 of the "views". In fact, you could sit at your desk all day hitting F5 and every time you did that would count as another view.

Such is your perilous mental state and unusual desire to prove points that only you seem to understand, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you've been doing.

I mean this with the best of intent now, whatever points you're trying to make aren't needed anymore. Just go and spend time with your family and friends and move on with your life.

Again another that is not interested in the future one iota. Zero interest, just like virtually everyone in the age biased trust.

Interested in the past, and openness, and protecting. Key being Openness. Openness that makes being anonymous on an anonymous forum an issue, but not considering why on earth it should be......

It's openness because of a need to attack, nothing to do with what it achieved. 15 trust reps to 4 in 8 years, what a fine achievement all that attacking produced.

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 8:52 am

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 7:54 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 6:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Who has been obsessed with attacking the club and trust on this forum, and doesn't actually watch any games?..............because he lives away and watches his local team..........what a pointless action, from an irrelevance........

But the mindset that thinks that players wages should be made public, continues and votes for another legal bod to legislate for openness.

Openness in the form of putting the question should the trust be dissolved? in the certain knowledge that a trust membership won't consider it, but still wants to keep control of trust money via his decision that it has to be spent on the community.........

You do understand how the views counter works?

You alone probably account for 10,000 of the "views". In fact, you could sit at your desk all day hitting F5 and every time you did that would count as another view.

Such is your perilous mental state and unusual desire to prove points that only you seem to understand, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you've been doing.

I mean this with the best of intent now, whatever points you're trying to make aren't needed anymore. Just go and spend time with your family and friends and move on with your life.

Again another that is not interested in the future one iota. Zero interest, just like virtually everyone in the age biased trust.

Interested in the past, and openness, and protecting. Key being Openness. Openness that makes being anonymous on an anonymous forum an issue, but not considering why on earth it should be......

It's openness because of a need to attack, nothing to do with what it achieved. 15 trust reps to 4 in 8 years, what a fine achievement all that attacking produced.

Get help mate, genuinely. You may be right, I don't really care to be honest. At this stage your mental state is more important.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 9:26 am

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 8:52 am

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 7:54 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 6:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Who has been obsessed with attacking the club and trust on this forum, and doesn't actually watch any games?..............because he lives away and watches his local team..........what a pointless action, from an irrelevance........

But the mindset that thinks that players wages should be made public, continues and votes for another legal bod to legislate for openness.

Openness in the form of putting the question should the trust be dissolved? in the certain knowledge that a trust membership won't consider it, but still wants to keep control of trust money via his decision that it has to be spent on the community.........

You do understand how the views counter works?

You alone probably account for 10,000 of the "views". In fact, you could sit at your desk all day hitting F5 and every time you did that would count as another view.

Such is your perilous mental state and unusual desire to prove points that only you seem to understand, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you've been doing.

I mean this with the best of intent now, whatever points you're trying to make aren't needed anymore. Just go and spend time with your family and friends and move on with your life.

Again another that is not interested in the future one iota. Zero interest, just like virtually everyone in the age biased trust.

Interested in the past, and openness, and protecting. Key being Openness. Openness that makes being anonymous on an anonymous forum an issue, but not considering why on earth it should be......

It's openness because of a need to attack, nothing to do with what it achieved. 15 trust reps to 4 in 8 years, what a fine achievement all that attacking produced.

Get help mate, genuinely. You may be right, I don't really care to be honest. At this stage your mental state is more important.

Set up some spurious reason for shutting down debate yet again, the mindset to attack and not achieve is far too strong.

Strange as it is always those who are keen on letting you know who they are on an anonymous forum, are those who don't want discussion on the future isn't it?

But shutting down is the opposite to openness isn't it?

And the reason views are increasing is due to the same reason that record producers wanted the BBC to ban records, because it increased sales massively..............

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 5:16 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 9:26 am

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 8:52 am

rncfc wrote: March 6th, 2024, 7:54 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2024, 6:17 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 5th, 2024, 11:09 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 5th, 2024, 7:29 pm ... baggage that comes with time, and Stan and his legacy in terms of mindset........

Bangit' gazes at a photograph of me and pleasures himself. His obsession is disturbing.

Who has been obsessed with attacking the club and trust on this forum, and doesn't actually watch any games?..............because he lives away and watches his local team..........what a pointless action, from an irrelevance........

But the mindset that thinks that players wages should be made public, continues and votes for another legal bod to legislate for openness.

Openness in the form of putting the question should the trust be dissolved? in the certain knowledge that a trust membership won't consider it, but still wants to keep control of trust money via his decision that it has to be spent on the community.........

You do understand how the views counter works?

You alone probably account for 10,000 of the "views". In fact, you could sit at your desk all day hitting F5 and every time you did that would count as another view.

Such is your perilous mental state and unusual desire to prove points that only you seem to understand, I wouldn't be surprised if that's what you've been doing.

I mean this with the best of intent now, whatever points you're trying to make aren't needed anymore. Just go and spend time with your family and friends and move on with your life.

Again another that is not interested in the future one iota. Zero interest, just like virtually everyone in the age biased trust.

Interested in the past, and openness, and protecting. Key being Openness. Openness that makes being anonymous on an anonymous forum an issue, but not considering why on earth it should be......

It's openness because of a need to attack, nothing to do with what it achieved. 15 trust reps to 4 in 8 years, what a fine achievement all that attacking produced.

Get help mate, genuinely. You may be right, I don't really care to be honest. At this stage your mental state is more important.

Set up some spurious reason for shutting down debate yet again, the mindset to attack and not achieve is far too strong.

Strange as it is always those who are keen on letting you know who they are on an anonymous forum, are those who don't want discussion on the future isn't it?

But shutting down is the opposite to openness isn't it?

And the reason views are increasing is due to the same reason that record producers wanted the BBC to ban records, because it increased sales massively..............

There is nothing to discuss. I don't agree with you, why continue the conversation? You have one opinion, I have another. Is that not OK?