| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback 11:59 - Dec 11 with 11989 views | union_jack |
I have already posted briefly about this on the 'Jenkins Petition' thread but I'd like to encourage others to be aware of what the group' s fundamental aims are and hopefully get more people involved.
Four of us attended at The Landore Club before the WBA game just to get a feel for what we should be doing. It was clear from the start that there is a need for a group and that the attendees (Vetchfielder, ATFV, myself and Phil) were all enthusiastic to see it happen.
We agreed early on that this should group should not be seen as a discrete group going off on its own without involving other similar minded groups. This of course meant The Trust in the main but also amongst others The Union. This will give us a collective strength and will not work if there is in-fighting. I have read on the aforementioned thread today that The Union's aim of ousting 'the regime' regardless of our league position is in complete harmony with ours. And that is the first and most fundamental raison d'être of the ISG (I'll call it that for now but touch on it later).
The Trust are undoubtedly hamstrung in what they can say publically. Whether we agree with that or not is a matter of debate but if we take that as a given then it gives the ISG the opportunity to go public and voice fans' opinions legitimately. For that to be successful we will need to use every available communication source available to us. Nigel is committed to using ATFV as one vessel and there are other similar publications but we also need to get the press and media to listen.
With regards to the latter, there is very much a 'hunting with the foxes, running with the hares' approach from the local press / media which means the real problems at SCFC are not being aired publically. We talked about how many in the ground on Saturday are aware of the goings on both past and present. If I took a punt at 40% of the crowd, that may be optimistic I reckon. Only by making people aware can we open their eyes and in turn create a mass large enough to make the present sell-out members of the board so uncomfortable they will contemplate their own futures. The message must come out loud and clear and to be more successful we mustn't restrict ourselves to local media. We need to get out to a wider audience via national TV and newspapers who have no axe to grind.
For this to happen the ISG will need to be respected and have gravitas. That can only be achieved with a well known respected head of the group and that will be Phil Sumbler. Phil has an unrivalled working knowledge of The Trust, the club itself and connections with the media.
Now, the name of the group is something we need to get sorted asap because then we can get a website up and running and do whatever we need to do with social media.
I am sure Phil will give free, lifetime membership to Planet Swans (unless you are banned or the site ceases to exist, T&Cs apply) for anyone coming up with a catchy title that isn't coarse or uncouth!!! My creative juices have run dry.
I know there were others planning to come on the day but for a number of reasons were unable to attend. However, if anyone is enthusiastic enough to want to attend and get involved just pm Phil and he'll put you on the email list. Alternatively, put your suggestions, ideas or views on here so we can all discuss.
Just to conclude, although the primary aim is to cleanse the club of its core problems, it will have a number of other objectives as time goes on. These could include ticket pricing, disabled parking, Vice Presidents seating and / or any other issues that fans may see as ruining their match day experience.
I hope we all get behind it.
Tim
|  |
| |  |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 12:50 - Dec 11 with 5877 views | SPboy |
Tim,
Thanks for the update, that’s an improvement on the Trust comms or lack of straight away. Indeed your 40% estimate of crowd numbers who might think they know what is going on is a gross overestimate if I ever heard one.
With regard knowing what has been going on past & present, sure some people know that the old owners decided to sell their shares without letting the majority shareholders (The Trust) know. Probably more like 10%. Same with the Trust share sale to the new owners.
With regard to ‘cleanse the club of its core problems’ you will need to be very clear in your definition as to what that means, as many people have many different views on this. Good luck & keep the comms regular - perhaps an update every week or after every home match or meeting |  | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:04 - Dec 11 with 5832 views | Garyjack |
Apologies for not being able to attend Saturday. I did send an e-mail to explain but it seems that it only went to 2 people.
Anyway, as for a name. How about
'Federation of the Independent Swans Trust,
or for short
F.I.S.T.
 |  | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:08 - Dec 11 with 5814 views | E20Jack |
I would say 20% of the crowd are children. My feelings are more toward 20% of the fan base knowing and even that feels a tad much. Let's go 10%-20% then and that feels somewhat accurate. 40% of away crowd maybe.
Well done to all concerned for setting up a group you feel can make the changes you want. As I told Phil privately, getting rid of Huw Jenkins seems to be a main focus of a lot of these groups and don't want to be associated with a group that is picking the wrong battles, Jenkins, ticket prices and Vice President seats are so far removed from our most pressing issue facing the club it's untrue. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:18 - Dec 11 with 5775 views | Darran |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:04 - Dec 11 by Garyjack |
Apologies for not being able to attend Saturday. I did send an e-mail to explain but it seems that it only went to 2 people.
Anyway, as for a name. How about
'Federation of the Independent Swans Trust,
or for short
F.I.S.T.
|
Yes and Jenkins can have a good fisting. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:20 - Dec 11 with 5772 views | union_jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 12:50 - Dec 11 by SPboy |
Tim,
Thanks for the update, that’s an improvement on the Trust comms or lack of straight away. Indeed your 40% estimate of crowd numbers who might think they know what is going on is a gross overestimate if I ever heard one.
With regard knowing what has been going on past & present, sure some people know that the old owners decided to sell their shares without letting the majority shareholders (The Trust) know. Probably more like 10%. Same with the Trust share sale to the new owners.
With regard to ‘cleanse the club of its core problems’ you will need to be very clear in your definition as to what that means, as many people have many different views on this. Good luck & keep the comms regular - perhaps an update every week or after every home match or meeting |
What I meant by that is to be active in removing the sell-out board members and in particular Huw Jenkins.
Whether we are doing well or not on-field, it is imperative we do everything we can to make them all feel as uncomfortable as possible so they leave.
This is clearly the aim of The Union as well. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:25 - Dec 11 with 5747 views | union_jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:08 - Dec 11 by E20Jack |
I would say 20% of the crowd are children. My feelings are more toward 20% of the fan base knowing and even that feels a tad much. Let's go 10%-20% then and that feels somewhat accurate. 40% of away crowd maybe.
Well done to all concerned for setting up a group you feel can make the changes you want. As I told Phil privately, getting rid of Huw Jenkins seems to be a main focus of a lot of these groups and don't want to be associated with a group that is picking the wrong battles, Jenkins, ticket prices and Vice President seats are so far removed from our most pressing issue facing the club it's untrue. |
Forget ticket pricing, Vice Presidents etc. Just for the moment. Those were included so that you are aware that there are on-going issues that a group such as this could be vocal about.
However, the Jenkins et al issue is pressing in my mind. He is central to everything that is wrong with the football club at present and although there are other issues, achieving this aim will hopefully put the club on a better footing both now and in the long term.
I was told that Jenkins spends most of his time at Fairwood, not the Liberty. It makes no sense that he has control over on-field activities and that is coming through loud and clear and has been for some years.
Let's start with one step and move on from there. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:32 - Dec 11 with 5716 views | Landore_Jack |
Some of the sellouts still retain a small percentage in the club. Will that be an issue? |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:35 - Dec 11 with 5692 views | E20Jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:25 - Dec 11 by union_jack |
Forget ticket pricing, Vice Presidents etc. Just for the moment. Those were included so that you are aware that there are on-going issues that a group such as this could be vocal about.
However, the Jenkins et al issue is pressing in my mind. He is central to everything that is wrong with the football club at present and although there are other issues, achieving this aim will hopefully put the club on a better footing both now and in the long term.
I was told that Jenkins spends most of his time at Fairwood, not the Liberty. It makes no sense that he has control over on-field activities and that is coming through loud and clear and has been for some years.
Let's start with one step and move on from there. |
Jenkins seems to be pressing in many peoples eyes UJ, I completely understand why and 'revenge' seems to be of upper most importance in many peoples minds.
But that really is not what the focus should be about right now. The Trust is about to force through a deal that makes all of your other battles completely irrelevant. Jenkins probably womt be there in 18 months, neither will the current owners and probably neither will the Trust as a result of this deal. That then puts any other smaller battles (ticket pricing, disabled parking, VC seating) into further irrelevance because you then have a whole different set of owners who can change it to what they see fit.
The most pressing issue facing us as supporters today is the signing of this deal. Absolutely no question about it.
It seems such a shame that two prominant members left the Trust due to this deal and their apparent strong feelings towards how bad an i,pact it is going to have, then set up a supporters group to focus on the likes of Huw Jenkins who wont be there for long anyway.
See,s such a wasted opportunity and a frustrating muddling of priorities. Short sightedness again from how I see it, not looking at the bigger picture and what the legacy of each change battled for will have.
Please don't take this as me p*ssing on anyones parade as I admire fully the call to arms and the fact you are actively following your beliefs. I just wish those beliefs aligned with ehat clearly is the biggest danger we have facing the club since Tony Petty - and Huw Jenkins it aint.
People will see it when it is too late no doubt. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:37 - Dec 11 with 5688 views | Garyjack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:32 - Dec 11 by Landore_Jack |
Some of the sellouts still retain a small percentage in the club. Will that be an issue? |
Whilst you cannot force them from the boardroom or directors box as they are shareholders, they can still be removed from any position they hold at the club. | | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:46 - Dec 11 with 5648 views | union_jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:35 - Dec 11 by E20Jack |
Jenkins seems to be pressing in many peoples eyes UJ, I completely understand why and 'revenge' seems to be of upper most importance in many peoples minds.
But that really is not what the focus should be about right now. The Trust is about to force through a deal that makes all of your other battles completely irrelevant. Jenkins probably womt be there in 18 months, neither will the current owners and probably neither will the Trust as a result of this deal. That then puts any other smaller battles (ticket pricing, disabled parking, VC seating) into further irrelevance because you then have a whole different set of owners who can change it to what they see fit.
The most pressing issue facing us as supporters today is the signing of this deal. Absolutely no question about it.
It seems such a shame that two prominant members left the Trust due to this deal and their apparent strong feelings towards how bad an i,pact it is going to have, then set up a supporters group to focus on the likes of Huw Jenkins who wont be there for long anyway.
See,s such a wasted opportunity and a frustrating muddling of priorities. Short sightedness again from how I see it, not looking at the bigger picture and what the legacy of each change battled for will have.
Please don't take this as me p*ssing on anyones parade as I admire fully the call to arms and the fact you are actively following your beliefs. I just wish those beliefs aligned with ehat clearly is the biggest danger we have facing the club since Tony Petty - and Huw Jenkins it aint.
People will see it when it is too late no doubt. |
I don't take your post as anything other thab]n a well constructed opinion, and one which can be discussed further. This is what we need.
No one is going to argue about the acceptance of the deal by the Trust and whether it should be reversed. Most on here voted against it but the majority of Trudt members for it. That backs up my 40% or less theory. I hear that the Trust are close to agreeing the original terms of the deal which as it was what the majority of members voted for should therefore go ahead.
Or should it? I know there is an opinion that as the Americans tried to change the terms immediately after the vote then they demonstrated that they are not to be trusted and that the deal should be pulled by the Trust.
So yes, maybe the ISG could work with the Trust to make this happen though it's well beneath my pay grade so to speak to instigate this. Phil may wish to add his thoughts but I realise he is away for the majority of the week.
What I would say is that we would need to act very quickly if this is something the group would wish to take on. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:59 - Dec 11 with 5601 views | Oldjack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:46 - Dec 11 by union_jack |
I don't take your post as anything other thab]n a well constructed opinion, and one which can be discussed further. This is what we need.
No one is going to argue about the acceptance of the deal by the Trust and whether it should be reversed. Most on here voted against it but the majority of Trudt members for it. That backs up my 40% or less theory. I hear that the Trust are close to agreeing the original terms of the deal which as it was what the majority of members voted for should therefore go ahead.
Or should it? I know there is an opinion that as the Americans tried to change the terms immediately after the vote then they demonstrated that they are not to be trusted and that the deal should be pulled by the Trust.
So yes, maybe the ISG could work with the Trust to make this happen though it's well beneath my pay grade so to speak to instigate this. Phil may wish to add his thoughts but I realise he is away for the majority of the week.
What I would say is that we would need to act very quickly if this is something the group would wish to take on. |
Phil may wish to add his thoughts but I realise he is away for the majority of the week.
Whilst the internet still works ,theses days you're never away |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:00 - Dec 11 with 5598 views | monmouth |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:35 - Dec 11 by E20Jack |
Jenkins seems to be pressing in many peoples eyes UJ, I completely understand why and 'revenge' seems to be of upper most importance in many peoples minds.
But that really is not what the focus should be about right now. The Trust is about to force through a deal that makes all of your other battles completely irrelevant. Jenkins probably womt be there in 18 months, neither will the current owners and probably neither will the Trust as a result of this deal. That then puts any other smaller battles (ticket pricing, disabled parking, VC seating) into further irrelevance because you then have a whole different set of owners who can change it to what they see fit.
The most pressing issue facing us as supporters today is the signing of this deal. Absolutely no question about it.
It seems such a shame that two prominant members left the Trust due to this deal and their apparent strong feelings towards how bad an i,pact it is going to have, then set up a supporters group to focus on the likes of Huw Jenkins who wont be there for long anyway.
See,s such a wasted opportunity and a frustrating muddling of priorities. Short sightedness again from how I see it, not looking at the bigger picture and what the legacy of each change battled for will have.
Please don't take this as me p*ssing on anyones parade as I admire fully the call to arms and the fact you are actively following your beliefs. I just wish those beliefs aligned with ehat clearly is the biggest danger we have facing the club since Tony Petty - and Huw Jenkins it aint.
People will see it when it is too late no doubt. |
This was pretty much what I was going to write on the site Tim, but has saved me some typing. I love some revenge served cold and I'm all for hounding the backstabbers with their own past words and actions, but how the hell can we be aligned with the Trust when the single biggest issue is the share sale, and if we don't agree that the counterparty is trustworthy.
We simply have to campaign against that deal don't we? The leader of the new supporters voice, resigned over it! And therefore the new group cannot be aligned with The Trust until this rather knotty bone of contention is resolved.
Sorry in a rush, but I'm stuggling to see how that can be ignored. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:04 - Dec 11 with 5576 views | E20Jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 13:46 - Dec 11 by union_jack |
I don't take your post as anything other thab]n a well constructed opinion, and one which can be discussed further. This is what we need.
No one is going to argue about the acceptance of the deal by the Trust and whether it should be reversed. Most on here voted against it but the majority of Trudt members for it. That backs up my 40% or less theory. I hear that the Trust are close to agreeing the original terms of the deal which as it was what the majority of members voted for should therefore go ahead.
Or should it? I know there is an opinion that as the Americans tried to change the terms immediately after the vote then they demonstrated that they are not to be trusted and that the deal should be pulled by the Trust.
So yes, maybe the ISG could work with the Trust to make this happen though it's well beneath my pay grade so to speak to instigate this. Phil may wish to add his thoughts but I realise he is away for the majority of the week.
What I would say is that we would need to act very quickly if this is something the group would wish to take on. |
Exactly, this is something that needs to be done right now. I would be all over this if this was the initial principle aim. I just feel everything else becomes literally pointless once this deal is done.
Without wanting to go over ground we have been over a million times. The membership were swayed to vote a certain way, I have told Phil privately this too - If he comes out an recommends the membership demand a re-vote due to the Americans taking away a fundamental clause of the deal (a trusting wirking relationship) then I fully believe 100% the vote will be reversed.
People simply went with what they were told.
The club will undoubtedly be moved on soon, the stadium deal is now in place and the threat of legal action about to be eradicated. When they sell, they also potentially sell the Trusts stake, so every smalller battle you take on over the next year is vaporised and all work immediately reversed. No Americans, no Trust, probably no Jenkins and a whole different approach to the ownership.
The only thing in anybodies mind now should be focussing on calling a Trust meeting and voting out certain members we feel are forcing through this apocalyptic deal or Phil using his position to reverse what he recommended just a few months ago fully explaining what this could mean to the Trust, the club and its supporters for the rest of time.
How do the Trust expect to achieve their goal of protecting the club? By continuing to be an annoying flea in the boardroom that can be overpowered in a second? The club is already on a pre determined chain of hedge fund owners and venture capitalists, each one changing something fundamental it feels will increase the value of the club before passing it on, until you get the the end of the chain and the only value left is the value within the club that then gets pillage.
The only way is majority ownership and employing proper professionals into these positions. Once the Trust becomes majority shareholders then every single one of your other battles gets won.
Once this deal gets signed then that is essentially over. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:22 - Dec 11 with 5522 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Judging by the negative chanting at some games there is a fair bit of passion in the stadium, which may be improved by getting the story to more people.
You would get "Free Publicity" every match day if after each goal, near goal etc the fans were holding placards or banners and chanting.
Which should prompt questions on TV and in the press, which would give the lead in to interviews.
The Team & Clement have to be approached to make it clear that it is not aimed at them.
As to the trust, pushing through a new deal that has not been vote for perhaps they could be threatened with personal law suits on behalf of the Truts membership.
I did not rejoin the Trust or rejoin my Son & Grandchildren after all the revelations, but I would if I thought there was the possibility of forcing another vote. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:42 - Dec 11 with 5479 views | union_jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:00 - Dec 11 by monmouth |
This was pretty much what I was going to write on the site Tim, but has saved me some typing. I love some revenge served cold and I'm all for hounding the backstabbers with their own past words and actions, but how the hell can we be aligned with the Trust when the single biggest issue is the share sale, and if we don't agree that the counterparty is trustworthy.
We simply have to campaign against that deal don't we? The leader of the new supporters voice, resigned over it! And therefore the new group cannot be aligned with The Trust until this rather knotty bone of contention is resolved.
Sorry in a rush, but I'm stuggling to see how that can be ignored. |
Your point is valid Mon, but one of the conditions set by the group on Saturday was that there needs to be a working relationship with the Trust otherwise it will be antagonistic.
Don't think I'm saying you or E20 or others are wrong. It is something that needs addressing, but is it this group's responsibility? I'd like Phil to maybe give his thoughts on the reasoning behind it. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:47 - Dec 11 with 5458 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Surely the aim should be to gain control of The Trust. These supporters groups are nothing without any sort of stake in the club.
The rhetoric should be (temporarily) directed away from Jenkins etc and focusing more on the shambolic running of The Trust (past and present) and ousting those in charge who are either blind to the woeful job they are doing or who are for some reason wanting to destroy the organisation, as that is the only fan organisation that will ever have a real say in the future of the club. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:54 - Dec 11 with 5444 views | chad |
E20 hits the nail right on the head
Beyond the ongoing lack of good faith in negotiations by the buyers (Quelle surprise!)
There is clear evidence of the Trust Board misleading the members on the issues, plus not wanting the wider support involved — but anyone who coughed up a tenner/fiver with whatever motive had a vote no questions asked.
This is most urgent and pressing and anything else is currently a distraction which allows the deal to be pushed through.
Revenge is a dish best served cold and the legal case would put on public record the lies and deceit of the self-venerated sellouts.
Phil himself has said he would vote against the deal now
And let us be absolutely clear no matter what was implied, Counsel Never sanctioned this deal.
For the very people who should represent the supporters, to use Counsels standard advice to settle if possible and imply it meant we should not take legal action or even worse that we should accept this very poor deal is unconscionable and renders the vote a farce. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:02 - Dec 11 with 5411 views | Landore_Jack |
There have been plenty of fans that have criticised the Trust over a wide range of subjects. The ISG could find themselves in a difficult position when fans start start criticising the trust, since they are determined to have a working relationship with the Trust. What if the ISG and the Trust disagree on a certain topic? | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:30 - Dec 11 with 5343 views | union_jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:02 - Dec 11 by Landore_Jack |
There have been plenty of fans that have criticised the Trust over a wide range of subjects. The ISG could find themselves in a difficult position when fans start start criticising the trust, since they are determined to have a working relationship with the Trust. What if the ISG and the Trust disagree on a certain topic? |
Fair point.
I can only say that by working with the Trust, who have a board presence through the SD, then the club board will know that any actions the Trust disagree with will end up in the open. But it won't be the Trust who Will be putting it out there. There would be no official link.
The Americans especially hate bad publicity and will want to avoid it. It may give the Trust more of a say at board level.
Don't forget, this is a two way communication process. If the majority of fans want a certain course of action that the Trust does not, then the ISG will feed information in that direction. If there is still disagreement then each case would need to be looked at individually.
The selling of the shares issue aside, and yes I appreciate this is a huge point, I would see the Trust and other groups being very much on the same side. Maybe it is a case that another body tackles this crucial issue whereas the ISG works in tandem with the Trust for the long term good of the club.
This is all about discussion and it would be appreciated if the dialogue on here doesn't descend into an all out shouting match (which to now it certainly hasn't). | |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:37 - Dec 11 with 5319 views | Neath_Jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 14:42 - Dec 11 by union_jack |
Your point is valid Mon, but one of the conditions set by the group on Saturday was that there needs to be a working relationship with the Trust otherwise it will be antagonistic.
Don't think I'm saying you or E20 or others are wrong. It is something that needs addressing, but is it this group's responsibility? I'd like Phil to maybe give his thoughts on the reasoning behind it. |
"but one of the conditions set by the group on Saturday was that there needs to be a working relationship with the Trust "
So the 3 or 4 self appointed faces of this new organisation have already decided that after one brief meeting?
Sounds like a New Trust (Lite) already. The bloke who presided over the past 18 months of shambles has already been shoehorned into a "top of the tree" position in the new organisation.
Not a good start in my opinion. Good luck to you all though. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:40 - Dec 11 with 5312 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:37 - Dec 11 by Neath_Jack |
"but one of the conditions set by the group on Saturday was that there needs to be a working relationship with the Trust "
So the 3 or 4 self appointed faces of this new organisation have already decided that after one brief meeting?
Sounds like a New Trust (Lite) already. The bloke who presided over the past 18 months of shambles has already been shoehorned into a "top of the tree" position in the new organisation.
Not a good start in my opinion. Good luck to you all though. |
It doesn't read well at all. |  |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:53 - Dec 11 with 5260 views | IAN05 |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:37 - Dec 11 by Neath_Jack |
"but one of the conditions set by the group on Saturday was that there needs to be a working relationship with the Trust "
So the 3 or 4 self appointed faces of this new organisation have already decided that after one brief meeting?
Sounds like a New Trust (Lite) already. The bloke who presided over the past 18 months of shambles has already been shoehorned into a "top of the tree" position in the new organisation.
Not a good start in my opinion. Good luck to you all though. |
I wasn't at the meeting as I couldn't make it but these are not 4 self appointed people at all, they are the only ones who could make it on Saturday. There is a wider discussion taking place about direction etc which you should join, as the more variety of views the better. | | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:57 - Dec 11 with 5237 views | IAN05 |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:40 - Dec 11 by Bobby_Fischer |
It doesn't read well at all. |
In fairness the group only agreed that there needed to be a knowledge of what each other were working on and also the same with the Union group. Which is a fairly logical first step. | | | |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:58 - Dec 11 with 5233 views | Vetchfielder |
Very well summarised in the original post Tim.
Regarding the other point made by a few regarding halting the share sale, I also think this is valid and I made a similar comment in my original message to Phil.
However, this is a difficult one to resolve. On the one hand it would be advantageous to have a good working relationship between the new group and the Trust - I think co-operation could help both parties immensely. On the other hand there may be circumstances where I would want it to voice fans' feelings if the Trust was felt not to be adequately representing our feelings and even being critical of the Trust if appropriate, and accepting in that case that the Trust might not be happy.
Unfortunately I can't really think of the solution to reconciling these two conflicting demands.
Unless the relationship that can be developed is SO good that the Trust just take it in good spirit and not get too sensitive around any constructive criticism? I don't know. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:58 - Dec 11 with 5233 views | Neath_Jack |
| Independent Supporters' Group - Saturday's Meeting Feedback on 15:53 - Dec 11 by IAN05 |
I wasn't at the meeting as I couldn't make it but these are not 4 self appointed people at all, they are the only ones who could make it on Saturday. There is a wider discussion taking place about direction etc which you should join, as the more variety of views the better. |
"they are the only ones who could make it on Saturday".
They are the only ones out of who? Where was the meeting advertised for "others" to attend? They've already placed their flag in the sand with regards to an important decision on must have to work with the trust, so if that's not by self appointed people, then what?
Genuine questions, as i'd like to buy into it, but it doesn't look very good at the moment to me. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.