New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[JoeMezz]

Wonder who the 3 standing again are?

I see Alex Pollock is standing down too

Wondering if an alternative fans support group, one that questions the current regime more, could get set up? I'd definitely contribute to one.

[Mooneyraker]

I'm going to take exception to this one, sorry. I think it's pretty clear from my post history that I have no problem criticising the Trust for things they have done in the current incarnation, but if you're going to write off any new board before they've even put their names forward for election, then I think you're being completely unreasonable. The new board might be a continuity group - I doubt it, but it's possible, but suggesting there's zero chance of renewal when the Chair, both Vice Chairs and Treasurer have all stepped down at once is simply ridiculous.

No doubt a number of people have resigned from the Trust - firstly I suspect they may not actually have been de-registered as members if they'd already paid their annual minimum for the year, but that's something worth checking. But you're saying here that everyone left is either not paying attention or blind to the risk, which is ridiculous. From a personal perspective, I've kept up my membership specifically *to* have a vote at the AGM which would I suspect have been against several Trustees who are now standing down.

Judge the next board by what they do, rather than your worst case scenario fears please. It's such a thankless task, I can't help but worry that nobody will want to do it. God knows I certainly don't.

Where have I written them off?

I said "they are now largely fishing in a pool of either people who are sat dead on the sofa with the post piling up in the hallway or the proverbial 'happy clappers'."

Largely, not exclusively.

They could have had a call to action saying 'our AGM is coming up. Join if you want to have a say.' They didn't.

Given that they part own the ground now I think they should be held to a higher standard than when they were just fiddling around the edges. And that's before you get into the damage they have wrought by lashing us to Morfuni's mast.

[Nemo]

Wondering if an alternative fans support group, one that questions the current regime more, could get set up? I'd definitely contribute to one.

The Trust is legally now the joint custodian of the ground, so a "provisional Trust" or whatever can't take on that role. I do think there's an interesting case for what RobT described earlier in this thread and having the current Trust reduce its role to ground management and trying to get a seat on the board/some degree of fan ownership, rather than feeling that it has to be the "voice of the fans" which is the really difficult bit (guess what, fans don't all agree!).

The "fan union" role could of course be the Supporter's Club, but they have never had any interest in anything controversial. Maybe an activist fans group works, but they have the same problem as the Trust - if the club says no, what do you do next? Calling for a boycott seems a big step every time.

Where have I written them off?

I said "they are now largely fishing in a pool of either people who are sat dead on the sofa with the post piling up in the hallway or the proverbial 'happy clappers'."

Largely, not exclusively.

They could have had a call to action saying 'our AGM is coming up. Join if you want to have a say.' They didn't.

Given that they part own the ground now I think they should be held to a higher standard than when they were just fiddling around the edges. And that's before you get into the damage they have wrought by lashing us to Morfuni's mast.

If your argument is that you were only calling the vast majority of remaining Trust members "dead or happy clappers" rather than every single one, I think my point stands.

And the people you mean when you say "They" are literally all leaving. There will be a new "They" - they (the new they) might also be shit in your view. But judge them on their own actions.

[Mooneyraker]

The Trust is legally now the joint custodian of the ground, so a "provisional Trust" or whatever can't take on that role. I do think there's an interesting case for what RobT described earlier in this thread and having the current Trust reduce its role to ground management and trying to get a seat on the board/some degree of fan ownership, rather than feeling that it has to be the "voice of the fans" which is the really difficult bit (guess what, fans don't all agree!).

The "fan union" role could of course be the Supporter's Club, but they have never had any interest in anything controversial. Maybe an activist fans group works, but they have the same problem as the Trust - if the club says no, what do you do next? Calling for a boycott seems a big step every time.

If your argument is that you were only calling the vast majority of remaining Trust members "dead or happy clappers" rather than every single one, I think my point stands.

When you put it like that, perhaps it does seem a tad unreasonable. Fair enough. Apologies.

My main point is, the Trust could have been inclusive and got ahead of the negativity by giving people a chance to join ahead of the AGM. They didn't. After all of the mistakes they've made, that is a bad look.

I was a long time Trust member who left a few years ago when they tried to do a deal with Power on the ground. There is zero chance that I'd give a penny to the outgoing Trust hierarchy but I'd gladly have re-joined at this juncture.

They can say "it is the same process every year" but... you'd only know that if you were a member!!!

And that's before I get into my oft made point about the absolute mess that is the labyrinthine membership/community share structure that I think is a massive barrier to entry.

[Bob1978]

I agree the trust should reduce its role to ground custodians/ seat on the board. Not sure how they can have a campaigning role whilst needing to work with the town hierarchy.I’ve made this suggestion to them. A new campaigning fans voice organisation could be set up.

[reeves4england]

There seems to be a lot of concern about how many people have left Trust membership but I imagine that figure is 10% or below. Every summer you get the impression on social media that nobody is renewing their season ticket because of the price/manager/squad/owner and yet the figure has never dropped of a cliff. This will likely be much the same.

As for the elections, it's a chance to refresh the board and set a new course for the Trust - hopefully one which challenges the club, listens to the fans (whose opinions are broad and varied) and communicates regularly and effectively. The biggest thing likely to put good people off standing for election (time commitments aside) is the fanbase.

[TailBetweenLegs]

Could you simply rejoin and then get voted

[ron dodgers]

I was thinking of standing, as I have enough time, but the amount of abuse those guys get puts me off

[Riddick]

I was thinking of standing, as I have enough time, but the amount of abuse those guys get puts me off

Indeed. Maybe one or two people should think about the abuse they give them honestly. It was said the current chairman was accosted at a game with his kid. Who the hell wants that!

[Quagmire]

Could you simply rejoin and then get voted

Had to be a member by the 1st January to stand, they of course let everyone know this on 2nd January.

[Costanza]

I believe there are protocols is somebody is keen to join the Trust board and isn't currently a member (once the new board is in place).

It was still super sneaky though  

[reeves4england]

Could you simply rejoin and then get voted

You had to be a member

I believe there are protocols is somebody is keen to join the Trust board and isn't currently a member (once the new board is in place).

It was still super sneaky though 

The flip side of that argument is that if somebody has no interest in joining until there is an opportunity for a place on the board, they might not be the best choice to represent the interests of the fanbase anyway.

[Batch]

You had to be a member The flip side of that argument is that if somebody has no interest in joining until there is an opportunity for a place on the board, they might not be the best choice to represent the interests of the fanbase anyway.

Which is up to the members to decide! Obviously though there is a very clear risk of not enough candidates for a properly contested vote

[Batch]

Indeed. Maybe one or two people should think about the abuse they give them honestly. It was said the current chairman was accosted at a game with his kid. Who the hell wants that!

I heard that too. That is massively massively out of order.

If you are dissatisfied you have 3 choices IMO
 - approach the trust collective and express desire for them to change
 - stand to help action change
 - walk away from the trust

Discussion and frustrations boil over on SM, I'm guilty though not OOT I hope. I do think Spenser probably got  a fair but of personal online criticism - probably deserved but possibly a bit too personal? I dunno, didn't help himself mind.

[theakston2k]

I heard that too. That is massively massively out of order.

If you are dissatisfied you have 3 choices IMO
 - approach the trust collective and express desire for them to change
 - stand to help action change
 - walk away from the trust

Discussion and frustrations boil over on SM, I'm guilty though not OOT I hope. I do think Spenser probably got  a fair but of personal online criticism - probably deserved but possibly a bit too personal? I dunno, didn't help himself mind.

The Mytton thing was totally out of order like you say, especially in front of his family.

Spencer however deserved everything he got the moment he started making passive aggressive threats to fans on Twitter and constantly defending Morfuni no matter what. I’d go as far to say the behaviour of Spencer is the primary reason many turned on the Trust, it was certainly the main red flag for me.