mad norm wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:55 pm My understanding is minimal

lowandhard wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:28 pm Well tell us then, who came forward its you that's keeps pretending that the trust are stopping investment, so put up or shut up.
We know, we know, you will never be shut up, it's very hard however to find anything useful, instead of you just attacking for the sake of it, in every single one of your posts.
Perhaps you can out point something which isn't either demanding, derogatory or simply just attacking for us?

Can’t you read? Or write for that matter. Your gibberish above only obfuscates the point I made above, that we really don’t know ( and are moreover unlikely to find out ) if any approaches have ever been made given the lack of transparency and apparent lack of enthusiasm for such a move.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:23 pm

My own view is simple, I trust the trust, so if comes to fruition, I will vote as they suggest.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:23 pm

My own view is simple, I trust the trust, so if comes to fruition, I will vote as they suggest.

I hereby promise that I will donate £1,000 to the Trust and become a platinum member for life if Banginternet is as good as his word and the Trust vote to suggest Bangitinthenet sticks his head between his legs and kisses his own arse.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:51 pm My understanding is the fans survey of 74% favouring a hybrid model was taken from all supporters and not just those who were Trust members.

Amberexile wrote: March 6th, 2023, 9:16 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:51 pm My understanding is the fans survey of 74% favouring a hybrid model was taken from all supporters and not just those who were Trust members.

You are correct, anybody whatsoever could respond to the survey. You didn't have to be a Trust member, you didn't have to be a club supporter, you didn't even have to live in the UK. Absolutely anybody could vote. The Trust board took the results of that public survey and made a commitment to a series of workshops to determine the view of Trust members only and the best way to progress. At the first workshop which was limited to trust members, the majority of those in attendance decided that the Trust did not want to pursue a hybrid model.

Also even if it had been 74% of Trust members, that would still fail to reach the 75% required to carry a resolution to change the constitution. So the resolution would have been defeated. Further, that is 75% of the members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, not 75% of those who actually vote making it an even harder benchmark to reach as any member not voting or unable to vote will in effect be counted as voting against.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:23 pm

lowandhard wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:28 pm Well tell us then, who came forward its you that's keeps pretending that the trust are stopping investment, so put up or shut up.
We know, we know, you will never be shut up, it's very hard however to find anything useful, instead of you just attacking for the sake of it, in every single one of your posts.
Perhaps you can out point something which isn't either demanding, derogatory or simply just attacking for us?

Can’t you read? Or write for that matter. Your gibberish above only obfuscates the point I made above, that we really don’t know ( and are moreover unlikely to find out ) if any approaches have ever been made given the lack of transparency and apparent lack of enthusiasm for such a move.

So yet again more statements made on what basis exactly? "Given the lack of transparency and apparent lack of enthusiasm"

So someone who doesn't read the policy documents on the website, and doesn't attend meetings were information is provided, is suffering from a lack of information.......... and complains about enthusiasm........

Nobody knows what a hybrid model will look like. That very likely includes the director's, as they can't dictate, can they?

So in the cases where clubs trust's have a minority or even small majority holding, what is your exemplar? Which club is it this week, Swansea? Two weeks ago people were saying Exeter, but their trust has a majority, so that one has been binned this week, as it doesn't suit.

My own view is simple, I trust the trust, so if comes to fruition, I will vote as they suggest.

So come on let's have some transparency from you, let's see YOU answer some questions......

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 6th, 2023, 9:30 pm Indeed.

I personally favour fans ownership. However trying to get 75% of a total electorate to vote let alone vote the same way is impossible.

Total stitch up.

lowandhard wrote: March 6th, 2023, 9:50 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 8:23 pm

lowandhard wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:54 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:28 pm Well tell us then, who came forward its you that's keeps pretending that the trust are stopping investment, so put up or shut up.
We know, we know, you will never be shut up, it's very hard however to find anything useful, instead of you just attacking for the sake of it, in every single one of your posts.
Perhaps you can out point something which isn't either demanding, derogatory or simply just attacking for us?

Can’t you read? Or write for that matter. Your gibberish above only obfuscates the point I made above, that we really don’t know ( and are moreover unlikely to find out ) if any approaches have ever been made given the lack of transparency and apparent lack of enthusiasm for such a move.

So yet again more statements made on what basis exactly? "Given the lack of transparency and apparent lack of enthusiasm"

So someone who doesn't read the policy documents on the website, and doesn't attend meetings were information is provided, is suffering from a lack of information.......... and complains about enthusiasm........

Nobody knows what a hybrid model will look like. That very likely includes the director's, as they can't dictate, can they?

So in the cases where clubs trust's have a minority or even small majority holding, what is your exemplar? Which club is it this week, Swansea? Two weeks ago people were saying Exeter, but their trust has a majority, so that one has been binned this week, as it doesn't suit.

My own view is simple, I trust the trust, so if comes to fruition, I will vote as they suggest.

So come on let's have some transparency from you, let's see YOU answer some questions......

I am so glad the Trust has your trust, let’s hope your devoted loyalty is rewarded. I’m always happy to answer sensible questions posed by reasonable people, it’s a pity but that rather excludes you and your argumentative nonsensical gibberish. I’ve learned my lesson, you can talk to yourself in future, I wish you the best of luck in getting any sense.

Amberexile wrote: March 6th, 2023, 9:16 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:51 pm My understanding is the fans survey of 74% favouring a hybrid model was taken from all supporters and not just those who were Trust members.

You are correct, anybody whatsoever could respond to the survey. You didn't have to be a Trust member, you didn't have to be a club supporter, you didn't even have to live in the UK. Absolutely anybody could vote. The Trust board took the results of that public survey and made a commitment to a series of workshops to determine the view of Trust members only and the best way to progress. At the first workshop which was limited to trust members, the majority of those in attendance decided that the Trust did not want to pursue a hybrid model.

Also even if it had been 74% of Trust members, that would still fail to reach the 75% required to carry a resolution to change the constitution. So the resolution would have been defeated. Further, that is 75% of the members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, not 75% of those who actually vote making it an even harder benchmark to reach as any member not voting or unable to vote will in effect be counted as voting against.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: March 7th, 2023, 5:20 am

Amberexile wrote: March 6th, 2023, 9:16 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: March 6th, 2023, 7:51 pm My understanding is the fans survey of 74% favouring a hybrid model was taken from all supporters and not just those who were Trust members.

You are correct, anybody whatsoever could respond to the survey. You didn't have to be a Trust member, you didn't have to be a club supporter, you didn't even have to live in the UK. Absolutely anybody could vote. The Trust board took the results of that public survey and made a commitment to a series of workshops to determine the view of Trust members only and the best way to progress. At the first workshop which was limited to trust members, the majority of those in attendance decided that the Trust did not want to pursue a hybrid model.

Also even if it had been 74% of Trust members, that would still fail to reach the 75% required to carry a resolution to change the constitution. So the resolution would have been defeated. Further, that is 75% of the members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting, not 75% of those who actually vote making it an even harder benchmark to reach as any member not voting or unable to vote will in effect be counted as voting against.

Referring back to the survey 84% of the respondents were Trust members, and whilst overall 74% favoured a hybrid model only 14% wanted to retain the Trust model, the remaining 12% just wanted to sell! So technically 86% we’re not in favour of retaining the status quo.

Trust membership has declined by 27% since that survey, partly due to membership costs, but I suspect also an element of disillusionment with the current set up. However those remaining probably represent a lot of hardcore Trust loyalists, so reaching the 75% milestone could indeed be a big ask. That said, as the constitution does not seem to set a minimum time qualification for new members to gain voting rights, then a purposeful surge in membership could never be ruled out.

Bangitintrnet wrote: March 7th, 2023, 7:35 am What is stopping the 75% marker being reduced if need be?

Surely the trust/club would only attract chancers just trying their luck if it was set low?