Bangitintrnet wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:03 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:44 pm

rncfc wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:33 pm To the average fan who just wants to help out, this isn't half a load of boring old sh1t.

Is there anyone out there who will, at some point, put the objectives of the trust and what sort of funding we're trying to achieve in words of one syllable?

These are the objects of the Trust under the existing Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
4.1 enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and
by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and
transparently;
4.3 ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run
for the long term interest of the Community;
4.4 providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
4.5 playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible
and prudent manner.

These are the objects under the proposed Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Society’s Objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and
strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and
future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to
do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial
responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all
supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability,
sexuality or religious or moral belief.

I hope that helps you.

As the trust are still percentage part owners of the club and have representatives on the board of the club, can you confirm why you think the trust is not performing the part function of a business?

Second question, as the shares as effectively worthless, can the entire share capital simply be reduced by the Trust's holding. I. E. Cancel the trust's holding to effectively increase both HJ and the remaining shareholders holdings? That is to not increase HJ's holding to greatly, as to make it worthwhile him cashing out at some point (without other shareholders benefiting).

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:03 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:44 pm

rncfc wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:33 pm To the average fan who just wants to help out, this isn't half a load of boring old sh1t.

Is there anyone out there who will, at some point, put the objectives of the trust and what sort of funding we're trying to achieve in words of one syllable?

These are the objects of the Trust under the existing Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
4.1 enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and
by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and
transparently;
4.3 ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run
for the long term interest of the Community;
4.4 providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
4.5 playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible
and prudent manner.

These are the objects under the proposed Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Society’s Objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and
strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and
future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to
do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial
responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all
supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability,
sexuality or religious or moral belief.

I hope that helps you.

As the trust are still percentage part owners of the club and have representatives on the board of the club, can you confirm why you think the trust is not performing the part function of a business?

Second question, as the shares as effectively worthless, can the entire share capital simply be reduced by the Trust's holding. I. E. Cancel the trust's holding to effectively increase both HJ and the remaining shareholders holdings? That is to not increase HJ's holding to greatly, as to make it worthwhile him cashing out at some point (without other shareholders benefiting).

In my understanding, a CBS must have legal control of a business. In order to do that it must have more than a holding of 50% of the shares, so if necessary it can ultimately determine how that business is run i.e the requirement is to be running a business. It is also clear from FCA guidance that a CBS cannot exist as such if it simply owns shares in a business. The FCA guidance for a CBS is here if you would like to look at the guidance yourself:https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/fina ... g15-12.pdf.

I think that it is unlikely that the shares can be dealt with as you suggest and certainly not without the approval of the Trust membership in advance. Effectively, the Trust membership would be approving or not all shareholders right that come with ownership of those shares. It would also likely need to be authorised by the AFC's articles of association. I would think a much simpler way of doing it, if the membership wanted it done, would be for the Trust to repeat the transfer process that brought HJ into ownership.

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:03 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:44 pm

rncfc wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:33 pm To the average fan who just wants to help out, this isn't half a load of boring old sh1t.

Is there anyone out there who will, at some point, put the objectives of the trust and what sort of funding we're trying to achieve in words of one syllable?

These are the objects of the Trust under the existing Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
4.1 enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and
by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and
transparently;
4.3 ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run
for the long term interest of the Community;
4.4 providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
4.5 playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible
and prudent manner.

These are the objects under the proposed Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Society’s Objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and
strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and
future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to
do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial
responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all
supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability,
sexuality or religious or moral belief.

I hope that helps you.

As the trust are still percentage part owners of the club and have representatives on the board of the club, can you confirm why you think the trust is not performing the part function of a business?

Second question, as the shares as effectively worthless, can the entire share capital simply be reduced by the Trust's holding. I. E. Cancel the trust's holding to effectively increase both HJ and the remaining shareholders holdings? That is to not increase HJ's holding to greatly, as to make it worthwhile him cashing out at some point (without other shareholders benefiting).

In my understanding, a CBS must have legal control of a business. In order to do that it must have more than a holding of 50% of the shares, so if necessary it can ultimately determine how that business is run i.e the requirement is to be running a business. It is also clear from FCA guidance that a CBS cannot exist as such if it simply owns shares in a business. The FCA guidance for a CBS is here if you would like to look at the guidance yourself:https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/fina ... g15-12.pdf.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 7:47 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:03 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:44 pm

rncfc wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:33 pm To the average fan who just wants to help out, this isn't half a load of boring old sh1t.

Is there anyone out there who will, at some point, put the objectives of the trust and what sort of funding we're trying to achieve in words of one syllable?

These are the objects of the Trust under the existing Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
4.1 enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and
by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and
transparently;
4.3 ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run
for the long term interest of the Community;
4.4 providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
4.5 playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible
and prudent manner.

These are the objects under the proposed Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Society’s Objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and
strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and
future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to
do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial
responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all
supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability,
sexuality or religious or moral belief.

I hope that helps you.

As the trust are still percentage part owners of the club and have representatives on the board of the club, can you confirm why you think the trust is not performing the part function of a business?

Second question, as the shares as effectively worthless, can the entire share capital simply be reduced by the Trust's holding. I. E. Cancel the trust's holding to effectively increase both HJ and the remaining shareholders holdings? That is to not increase HJ's holding to greatly, as to make it worthwhile him cashing out at some point (without other shareholders benefiting).

In my understanding, a CBS must have legal control of a business. In order to do that it must have more than a holding of 50% of the shares, so if necessary it can ultimately determine how that business is run i.e the requirement is to be running a business. It is also clear from FCA guidance that a CBS cannot exist as such if it simply owns shares in a business. The FCA guidance for a CBS is here if you would like to look at the guidance yourself:https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/fina ... g15-12.pdf.

Accrington Stanley supporter trust appears to run the away travel as their business, whereas the supporters club run ours separately.

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 9:46 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 7:47 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:03 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:44 pm

rncfc wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:33 pm To the average fan who just wants to help out, this isn't half a load of boring old sh1t.

Is there anyone out there who will, at some point, put the objectives of the trust and what sort of funding we're trying to achieve in words of one syllable?

These are the objects of the Trust under the existing Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
4.1 enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and
by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and
transparently;
4.3 ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run
for the long term interest of the Community;
4.4 providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
4.5 playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible
and prudent manner.

These are the objects under the proposed Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Society’s Objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and
strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and
future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to
do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial
responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all
supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability,
sexuality or religious or moral belief.

I hope that helps you.

As the trust are still percentage part owners of the club and have representatives on the board of the club, can you confirm why you think the trust is not performing the part function of a business?

Second question, as the shares as effectively worthless, can the entire share capital simply be reduced by the Trust's holding. I. E. Cancel the trust's holding to effectively increase both HJ and the remaining shareholders holdings? That is to not increase HJ's holding to greatly, as to make it worthwhile him cashing out at some point (without other shareholders benefiting).

In my understanding, a CBS must have legal control of a business. In order to do that it must have more than a holding of 50% of the shares, so if necessary it can ultimately determine how that business is run i.e the requirement is to be running a business. It is also clear from FCA guidance that a CBS cannot exist as such if it simply owns shares in a business. The FCA guidance for a CBS is here if you would like to look at the guidance yourself:https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/fina ... g15-12.pdf.

Accrington Stanley supporter trust appears to run the away travel as their business, whereas the supporters club run ours separately.

Perhaps the Trust could run the County lottery or the half-time draw?

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 9:46 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 7:47 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:23 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 11th, 2024, 5:03 pm

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:44 pm

rncfc wrote: April 11th, 2024, 4:33 pm To the average fan who just wants to help out, this isn't half a load of boring old sh1t.

Is there anyone out there who will, at some point, put the objectives of the trust and what sort of funding we're trying to achieve in words of one syllable?

These are the objects of the Trust under the existing Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Club’s objects are to benefit the community by;
4.1 enhancing the social, cultural and economic value of the Club to its Communities and
by acting as a responsible custodian of the club for future generations;
4.2 upholding the mutual ownership of the Club operating democratically, fairly and
transparently;
4.3 ensuring the Club operates with financial responsibility enabling the Club to be run
for the long term interest of the Community;
4.4 providing sporting facilities and opportunities regardless of age, income, ethnicity,
gender, disability, sexuality, religious or moral belief; and
4.5 playing at the highest level possible, but always operating in a financially responsible
and prudent manner.

These are the objects under the proposed Model Rules:

OBJECTS
4. The Society’s Objects are to benefit the community by:
4.1 being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of the Club and
strengthening the bonds between the Club and the communities which it serves;
4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;
4.3 promoting responsible and constructive community engagement by present and
future members of the communities served by the Club and encouraging the Club to
do the same;
4.4 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial
responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
4.5 being a positive, inclusive and representative organisation, open and accessible to all
supporters of the Club regardless of their age, income, ethnicity, gender, disability,
sexuality or religious or moral belief.

I hope that helps you.

As the trust are still percentage part owners of the club and have representatives on the board of the club, can you confirm why you think the trust is not performing the part function of a business?

Second question, as the shares as effectively worthless, can the entire share capital simply be reduced by the Trust's holding. I. E. Cancel the trust's holding to effectively increase both HJ and the remaining shareholders holdings? That is to not increase HJ's holding to greatly, as to make it worthwhile him cashing out at some point (without other shareholders benefiting).

In my understanding, a CBS must have legal control of a business. In order to do that it must have more than a holding of 50% of the shares, so if necessary it can ultimately determine how that business is run i.e the requirement is to be running a business. It is also clear from FCA guidance that a CBS cannot exist as such if it simply owns shares in a business. The FCA guidance for a CBS is here if you would like to look at the guidance yourself:https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/fina ... g15-12.pdf.

Accrington Stanley supporter trust appears to run the away travel as their business, whereas the supporters club run ours separately.

Perhaps the Trust could run the County lottery or the half-time draw?

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:39 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

That's the perception, but the fact is they run the football club for 8 seasons.

The other perception is that the club shouldn't have debt. So therefore we are asking those in charge to not run a business, because a good business uses other people's money and makes it into more money. Obviously that's not the case if the business is incuring debt paying duplicate money for several management and players but spreading it over the contracted period. Likewise Covid or paying for pitch renewal through increased rental over a longer period.

None of which matters if the trust membership doesn't want to run the club, because it doesn't want to have to deal with those things.

So the result is I have paid x over the years and it's gone, because it was used running the club, and I wanted it used to save the club.

Now do we have enough people on the trust board to actually run a trust that looks after away travel and half time draw?

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 11:51 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:39 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

That's the perception, but the fact is they run the football club for 8 seasons.

The other perception is that the club shouldn't have debt. So therefore we are asking those in charge to not run a business, because a good business uses other people's money and makes it into more money. Obviously that's not the case if the business is incuring debt paying duplicate money for several management and players but spreading it over the contracted period. Likewise Covid or paying for pitch renewal through increased rental over a longer period.

None of which matters if the trust membership doesn't want to run the club, because it doesn't want to have to deal with those things.

So the result is I have paid x over the years and it's gone, because it was used running the club, and I wanted it used to save the club.

Now do we have enough people on the trust board to actually run a trust that looks after away travel and half time draw?

I believe that if we get rid of the current board en masse we will find enough people willing and able to rum the Trust who could then go on and run the club.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 12:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 11:51 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:39 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

That's the perception, but the fact is they run the football club for 8 seasons.

The other perception is that the club shouldn't have debt. So therefore we are asking those in charge to not run a business, because a good business uses other people's money and makes it into more money. Obviously that's not the case if the business is incuring debt paying duplicate money for several management and players but spreading it over the contracted period. Likewise Covid or paying for pitch renewal through increased rental over a longer period.

None of which matters if the trust membership doesn't want to run the club, because it doesn't want to have to deal with those things.

So the result is I have paid x over the years and it's gone, because it was used running the club, and I wanted it used to save the club.

Now do we have enough people on the trust board to actually run a trust that looks after away travel and half time draw?

I believe that if we get rid of the current board en masse we will find enough people willing and able to rum the Trust who could then go on and run the club.

I think you are in a minority with that view, and suspect the recently conducted trust survey will provide an idea of what is likely.

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 6:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 12:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 11:51 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:39 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

That's the perception, but the fact is they run the football club for 8 seasons.

The other perception is that the club shouldn't have debt. So therefore we are asking those in charge to not run a business, because a good business uses other people's money and makes it into more money. Obviously that's not the case if the business is incuring debt paying duplicate money for several management and players but spreading it over the contracted period. Likewise Covid or paying for pitch renewal through increased rental over a longer period.

None of which matters if the trust membership doesn't want to run the club, because it doesn't want to have to deal with those things.

So the result is I have paid x over the years and it's gone, because it was used running the club, and I wanted it used to save the club.

Now do we have enough people on the trust board to actually run a trust that looks after away travel and half time draw?

I believe that if we get rid of the current board en masse we will find enough people willing and able to rum the Trust who could then go on and run the club.

I think you are in a minority with that view, and suspect the recently conducted trust survey will provide an idea of what is likely.

Me too, but I only need to be in a minority of 6 people. The difficulty will be getting rid of the current Board if any of them try to cling on.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 6:47 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 6:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 12:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 11:51 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:39 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

That's the perception, but the fact is they run the football club for 8 seasons.

The other perception is that the club shouldn't have debt. So therefore we are asking those in charge to not run a business, because a good business uses other people's money and makes it into more money. Obviously that's not the case if the business is incuring debt paying duplicate money for several management and players but spreading it over the contracted period. Likewise Covid or paying for pitch renewal through increased rental over a longer period.

None of which matters if the trust membership doesn't want to run the club, because it doesn't want to have to deal with those things.

So the result is I have paid x over the years and it's gone, because it was used running the club, and I wanted it used to save the club.

Now do we have enough people on the trust board to actually run a trust that looks after away travel and half time draw?

I believe that if we get rid of the current board en masse we will find enough people willing and able to rum the Trust who could then go on and run the club.

I think you are in a minority with that view, and suspect the recently conducted trust survey will provide an idea of what is likely.

Me too, but I only need to be in a minority of 6 people. The difficulty will be getting rid of the current Board if any of them try to cling on.

I don't think that is likely, more likely that the trust is running without the required numbers. I can see it running with 1 person shortly.

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 7:04 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 6:47 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 6:38 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 12:32 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 12th, 2024, 11:51 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:39 am

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:25 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 12th, 2024, 10:11 am To me it highlights a particular issue, that of deciding there is a problem, without looking at how others have overcome that perceived problem.......

I think that Stow Hill Sid represents the majority view when he stated, "we ran the club, gave it away, why would we want to run it again?"

I would take it one stage further, and say that the trust membership didn't want to actually run the club in the first place. What they wanted to do was 'save' the club, and the subscriptions paid were mostly from older fans who felt indebted, as they couldn't 'save' the original.

That for me is the problem, no one actually wants to look too closely regarding the detail of running the club, and what solutions have to be found, because we basically don't want to do it.

If we don't want to do it, what's the point in having two representatives on the club board simply treading water until HJ has had enough and someone buys the club?

Oh you've got your sensible hat on today. The Trust couldn't run our football club. We know that. We've given the club to Huw Jenkins because the majority of Trust members believed that was the best course of action (the irony...oh don't take me there). The point of having two Trust representatives on the Board (if that's what Uncle Huw wants (I'm going to start referring to him as 'Uncle Huw' (it makes me happy)) is purely symbolic. Uncle Huw can claim all decisions were made in conjunction with the supporters. The fan-base were in agreement. I don't blame him at all. I'd do the same.

That's the perception, but the fact is they run the football club for 8 seasons.

The other perception is that the club shouldn't have debt. So therefore we are asking those in charge to not run a business, because a good business uses other people's money and makes it into more money. Obviously that's not the case if the business is incuring debt paying duplicate money for several management and players but spreading it over the contracted period. Likewise Covid or paying for pitch renewal through increased rental over a longer period.

None of which matters if the trust membership doesn't want to run the club, because it doesn't want to have to deal with those things.

So the result is I have paid x over the years and it's gone, because it was used running the club, and I wanted it used to save the club.

Now do we have enough people on the trust board to actually run a trust that looks after away travel and half time draw?

I believe that if we get rid of the current board en masse we will find enough people willing and able to rum the Trust who could then go on and run the club.

I think you are in a minority with that view, and suspect the recently conducted trust survey will provide an idea of what is likely.

Me too, but I only need to be in a minority of 6 people. The difficulty will be getting rid of the current Board if any of them try to cling on.

I don't think that is likely, more likely that the trust is running without the required numbers. I can see it running with 1 person shortly.

If nobody tries to cling to the wreckage, that’s great. They just need to come out and say so then hold the elections as they should have done before giving the club away. Job done.