Yes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
Re: What has happened to us?
332Whether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
Re: What has happened to us?
333Or do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pmWhether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
Re: What has happened to us?
334You seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pmOr do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pmWhether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?
I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........
Re: What has happened to us?
335A survey did indeed show a majority in favour of the principle of a hybrid model, but was not of trust members alone. You say that 'then when Jon Pratt is involved' a 75% majority is required to amend the rules.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pmYou seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pmOr do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pmWhether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?
I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........
I would point out that the 75% rule of voting trust membets was stipulated long before Jon Pratt came on the scene, and applies to all supporters trusts.
Re: What has happened to us?
336In a nutshell I am saying that you can,t stop idiots making up crap so when they do it is best to ignore them. Using this message board as an example every one of these threads withers and dies within a week or so, the more they are ignored the quicker that happens. Regardless the club continues because their impact is zero.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pmYou seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pmOr do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pmWhether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?
I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........
Your 75% example, being described on here as North Korean should be laughed off. The time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent this vote is made but let's not go there
Re: What has happened to us?
337Agree that the time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent the 75% vote is made, by for example suggesting that the % required has been surpassed by a survey undertaken by among others non trust members, I.e. people not elligle to vote, for a hybrid proposition that hadn't been made.Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:49 pmIn a nutshell I am saying that you can,t stop idiots making up crap so when they do it is best to ignore them. Using this message board as an example every one of these threads withers and dies within a week or so, the more they are ignored the quicker that happens. Regardless the club continues because their impact is zero.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pmYou seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pmOr do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pmWhether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?
I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........
Your 75% example, being described on here as North Korean should be laughed off. The time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent this vote is made but let's not go there
Re: What has happened to us?
338To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that an attempt to circumvent the 75% marker will or has been made. What I said was it is ridiculous to say that it is an impossible target in the way it was suggested. I E only in a North Korean Dictatorship will such percentages be achieved. It is that statement that I believe should be challenged not be ignored, as not all people subsequently voting will recognise it as bollocks.OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 25th, 2023, 5:41 pmAgree that the time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent the 75% vote is made, by for example suggesting that the % required has been surpassed by a survey undertaken by among others non trust members, I.e. people not elligle to vote, for a hybrid proposition that hadn't been made.Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:49 pmIn a nutshell I am saying that you can,t stop idiots making up crap so when they do it is best to ignore them. Using this message board as an example every one of these threads withers and dies within a week or so, the more they are ignored the quicker that happens. Regardless the club continues because their impact is zero.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 4:10 pmYou seem to be suggesting that at least some of it is nonsense. Does that mean that the bits that aren't, in someway lead to openess? And if so how?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:21 pmOr do what most sensible people do and ignore the worst of the nonsense?Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 3:14 pmWhether or not it puts people off, if it doesn't lead to more openess, surely it achieves nothing, so wouldn't it be better to actually spend energy trying to build, rather than constantly trying to demolish?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 12:48 pmYes, but a very very small one hardly worth bothering aboutBangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 11:58 amMaybe, maybe not, the point is all the accusations that just unravell over time, does it actually achieve anything?Amberexile wrote: March 25th, 2023, 10:45 amI don't think a handful of numpties on an unofficial message board would put off people who are capable of doing the job.Bangitintrnet wrote: March 25th, 2023, 9:53 am
The thing is that people are simply not putting themselves forward for election. Now is part of the disincentive, the fact that everything published by the club is immediately rubbished? Does that encourage or discourage people who are willing to offer their expertise, time and energy for free, just to be rubbished?
People will express their views, it comes with the territory.
If it puts some people off, and is not achieving it's objective, surely it's a just an obstacle, a pointless hindrance?
I have no doubt that the trust are not perfect, but are they really as bad as is made out?
I find it very odd indeed that there is an overwhelming vote of 82%? in favour of a hybrid model. Then when John Pratt is involved, it is pointed out that the model trust rules - upon which the NCAFC trust is built - states that a 75% majority is required to amend the rules. The percentage is then described as something from a North Korean dictatorship, when the percentage required has actually already been surpassed, however the statement goes completely unchallenged........
Your 75% example, being described on here as North Korean should be laughed off. The time to get vexed is if an attempt to circumvent this vote is made but let's not go there