excessbee wrote: January 26th, 2024, 7:45 pm

lowandhard wrote: January 25th, 2024, 10:48 pm Btw I want the Trust to prosper and we really need to participate in this debate. I don’t think it will unless it reforms.

I'm intending to continue my Trust contribution. Up until the Trust took on ownership, I looked upon it as sideshow of little consequence. Then the reality was clear. We can't expect a Club at EFL level to function on turnstile income alone. I'm hoping a reset of the Trust's role will give it a purpose to regenerate. If we all abandon it now, it will deny the football club a substantial cash inflow. I don't buy into the idea that we would be lining HJ's pockets. Every club needs fans to contribute above and beyond the bare minimum.

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:12 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

Whether the loss was indeed linked to third parties is completely irrelevant, unfortunately the Trust was badly led by a massive ego and collectively exhibited breathtaking incompetence. There is no way that any reasonably run business would have been caught out by the surprise of a £1.2m loss, that’s what’s management accounts are for.

My only surprise is that the Trust Board have not now offered their immediate resignations, instead we see a couple of individuals worming their way onto Huw’s new Board. Who, out of all the Trust membership nominated them for this new role? No wonder they were not keen on the transparency motion as I suspect there is a lot to hide.

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:16 am

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:12 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

Whether the loss was indeed linked to third parties is completely irrelevant, unfortunately the Trust was badly led by a massive ego and collectively exhibited breathtaking incompetence. There is no way that any reasonably run business would have been caught out by the surprise of a £1.2m loss, that’s what’s management accounts are for.

My only surprise is that the Trust Board have not now offered their immediate resignations, instead we see a couple of individuals worming their way onto Huw’s new Board. Who, out of all the Trust membership nominated them for this new role? No wonder they were not keen on the transparency motion as I suspect there is a lot to hide.

As stated, there are too many in the trust who can't see beyond wanting to hold someone accountable, to see a future.

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:01 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:16 am

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:12 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

Whether the loss was indeed linked to third parties is completely irrelevant, unfortunately the Trust was badly led by a massive ego and collectively exhibited breathtaking incompetence. There is no way that any reasonably run business would have been caught out by the surprise of a £1.2m loss, that’s what’s management accounts are for.

My only surprise is that the Trust Board have not now offered their immediate resignations, instead we see a couple of individuals worming their way onto Huw’s new Board. Who, out of all the Trust membership nominated them for this new role? No wonder they were not keen on the transparency motion as I suspect there is a lot to hide.

As stated, there are too many in the trust who can't see beyond wanting to hold someone accountable, to see a future.

For some at least it isn't a matter of who, it is a matter of how.

Until there is an adequate explanation of how the £1,2 million was lost, many will find it difficult to have trust in the Trust moving forward.

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:31 am

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:01 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:16 am

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: January 27th, 2024, 9:12 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

Whether the loss was indeed linked to third parties is completely irrelevant, unfortunately the Trust was badly led by a massive ego and collectively exhibited breathtaking incompetence. There is no way that any reasonably run business would have been caught out by the surprise of a £1.2m loss, that’s what’s management accounts are for.

My only surprise is that the Trust Board have not now offered their immediate resignations, instead we see a couple of individuals worming their way onto Huw’s new Board. Who, out of all the Trust membership nominated them for this new role? No wonder they were not keen on the transparency motion as I suspect there is a lot to hide.

As stated, there are too many in the trust who can't see beyond wanting to hold someone accountable, to see a future.

For some at least it isn't a matter of who, it is a matter of how.

Until there is an adequate explanation of how the £1,2 million was lost, many will find it difficult to have trust in the Trust moving forward.

And I understand that statement except for the part lost. We know it was used to pay for things, and we can surmise what that was for.

There is a piece on Wales on Line about the covid debt that the four regional rugby clubs built up, and how they are unhappy about the interest rate. My own opinion is the clubs probably gambled on loans being written off, but weren't.

In unpredictable times gambles are made, some work out, some don't. Pushing the can down the road can sometimes be beneficial. However when clubs are relying ultimately on owners who don't have the ability to write off loans, then any financial promises made at the time, will ultimately be worthless.

excessbee wrote: January 27th, 2024, 10:36 am Was it 'lost' or just spent in the normal running of the club to compete at that level? The problem seems to have been in the auditing and reporting of the spending. It was perhaps exacerbated by the foolhardy policy of reliance on a Cup windfall. The appointment of a clearly inadequate director of football (said with hindsight) wasn't very smart either.

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

wattsville_boy wrote: January 27th, 2024, 2:52 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

I have no problems with the two "Trust" board members being of a professional standing, but then you can then get caught up in an argument about what constitutes a professional. The Police for example keep pushing the untruth about being "professionals" but do not have to register with a professional body on a regular basis, or prove development through proscribed levels of learning (either work-based or through further study) but could have analytical skills that could prove useful. Although someone with a background in business sounds good, I would be mindful that many business people seek to be part of a "club", hence why they join the Freemasons, or golf club for their own betterment - not necessarily for the betterment of others. I would be more in favour of someone I feel I could trust and that the two "Trust" board members have differing attributes to bring to the table...

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 3:25 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: January 27th, 2024, 2:52 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

I have no problems with the two "Trust" board members being of a professional standing, but then you can then get caught up in an argument about what constitutes a professional. The Police for example keep pushing the untruth about being "professionals" but do not have to register with a professional body on a regular basis, or prove development through proscribed levels of learning (either work-based or through further study) but could have analytical skills that could prove useful. Although someone with a background in business sounds good, I would be mindful that many business people seek to be part of a "club", hence why they join the Freemasons, or golf club for their own betterment - not necessarily for the betterment of others. I would be more in favour of someone I feel I could trust and that the two "Trust" board members have differing attributes to bring to the table...

When I mentioned professionals, I was referring to people that HJ wants on the board, but doesn't have the finance for. Those people ultimately may pay for themselves in what they add, but initially will require a salary.

Of course to go down that route it takes more than you and I to be in favour, and for the trust membership to want to abandon a voting process, and also the desire to look backwards rather than forwards. Do you see all that as likely?

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 6:17 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 3:25 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: January 27th, 2024, 2:52 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

I have no problems with the two "Trust" board members being of a professional standing, but then you can then get caught up in an argument about what constitutes a professional. The Police for example keep pushing the untruth about being "professionals" but do not have to register with a professional body on a regular basis, or prove development through proscribed levels of learning (either work-based or through further study) but could have analytical skills that could prove useful. Although someone with a background in business sounds good, I would be mindful that many business people seek to be part of a "club", hence why they join the Freemasons, or golf club for their own betterment - not necessarily for the betterment of others. I would be more in favour of someone I feel I could trust and that the two "Trust" board members have differing attributes to bring to the table...

When I mentioned professionals, I was referring to people that HJ wants on the board, but doesn't have the finance for. Those people ultimately may pay for themselves in what they add, but initially will require a salary.

Of course to go down that route it takes more than you and I to be in favour, and for the trust membership to want to abandon a voting process, and also the desire to look backwards rather than forwards. Do you see all that as likely?

Who are these people you say "that HJ wants on the board, but doesn't have the finance for"?

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:00 pm

Amberexile wrote: January 27th, 2024, 6:17 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 3:25 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: January 27th, 2024, 2:52 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 27th, 2024, 8:32 am

wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am

lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.

I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?

Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?

As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?

There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.

I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.

I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.

I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...

What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.

The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.

Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.

I have no problems with the two "Trust" board members being of a professional standing, but then you can then get caught up in an argument about what constitutes a professional. The Police for example keep pushing the untruth about being "professionals" but do not have to register with a professional body on a regular basis, or prove development through proscribed levels of learning (either work-based or through further study) but could have analytical skills that could prove useful. Although someone with a background in business sounds good, I would be mindful that many business people seek to be part of a "club", hence why they join the Freemasons, or golf club for their own betterment - not necessarily for the betterment of others. I would be more in favour of someone I feel I could trust and that the two "Trust" board members have differing attributes to bring to the table...

When I mentioned professionals, I was referring to people that HJ wants on the board, but doesn't have the finance for. Those people ultimately may pay for themselves in what they add, but initially will require a salary.

Of course to go down that route it takes more than you and I to be in favour, and for the trust membership to want to abandon a voting process, and also the desire to look backwards rather than forwards. Do you see all that as likely?

Who are these people you say "that HJ wants on the board, but doesn't have the finance for"?

How would I know who HJ would like on his board?

However, if there is anyone that would actually know who would make a good director, it's surely HJ. Not me, not you, not any trust voters.

It could be that the club eats away at the disadvantage that it has financially, by having the right people, in the right place, provided by the fans, via the trust.

It takes all the guess work out of any appointment, which the current system of voting, can only provide.
Why keep a system that gives the club a disadvange?