Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:20 pm
Shaun told us at the second meeting that getting trust information across was a huge problem, due to misinformation.

Another word for misinformation is people like you and Stan telling lies...................

Quite why we now have you and Stan who is not a member of the Trust, but could have been just in order to vote, now trying to get trust members to vote against the trusts chosen candidate, we can only imagine....................

The trust will all but disappear in terms of running the club, and you want caos to prevail. I wonder why that might be?

I don't see anybody overtly asking people to vote against the chosen candidate. Am I missing something?

If the resolutions do get voted down, chaos will not prevail, the Board will probably have a second go at bringing the members along with them before seeking new members for the Board so that they can step down. If we believe what we have been told that there are no cash flow issues we may miss out on one or two players in the January transfer window but that is about it. On the other hand there may be an opportunity to steady the ship, bring in fresh ideas and go looking for a better option from a safer position. They really don't help themselves having messed up royally now expecting people to vote for their choice without revealing anything about the alternatives and trusting them to then negotiate the terms of an agreement including what percentage of shares will be given away.

They have lost the trust of a number of members and seem to be doing little to earn it back.

County ranger wrote: September 18th, 2023, 9:04 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: September 17th, 2023, 7:20 pm
Shaun told us at the second meeting that getting trust information across was a huge problem, due to misinformation.

Another word for misinformation is people like you and Stan telling lies...................

Quite why we now have you and Stan who is not a member of the Trust, but could have been just in order to vote, now trying to get trust members to vote against the trusts chosen candidate, we can only imagine....................

The trust will all but disappear in terms of running the club, and you want caos to prevail. I wonder why that might be?

I don't see anybody overtly asking people to vote against the chosen candidate. Am I missing something?

If the resolutions do get voted down, chaos will not prevail, the Board will probably have a second go at bringing the members along with them before seeking new members for the Board so that they can step down. If we believe what we have been told that there are no cash flow issues we may miss out on one or two players in the January transfer window but that is about it. On the other hand there may be an opportunity to steady the ship, bring in fresh ideas and go looking for a better option from a safer position. They really don't help themselves having messed up royally now expecting people to vote for their choice without revealing anything about the alternatives and trusting them to then negotiate the terms of an agreement including what percentage of shares will be given away.

They have lost the trust of a number of members and seem to be doing little to earn it back.

I respect the Board for having the desire to take responsibility but agree with you, they have messed up and are dreadfully even dangerously out of their depth. Without full disclosure they have lost the trust of the membership to make the right decisions. The meetings to date have for not improved the situation as they have been conservative with the truth.
Their final act of madness seeking 75% approval rather than the required 51% under the constitution of the Trust. I fear they will struggle and mess up the meeting with vague and defensive answers to questions.

SixtyYearFan wrote: September 18th, 2023, 8:58 pm

Called the police on the club yet as you promised, grass?.