Thetownend.com

This gets discussed a bit in the New Beginnings thread, but I suppose we can probably stretch to separate threads for the two basket case organisations in our lives and leave that thread to the actual club administration, fans forums and so on.

To summarise where we're at:

The Trust AGM is on 28th Feb

This also includes election of board members. A huge number are resigning including Steve Mytton (Chair), James Spencer & Alex Pollock (co vice-chairs) and Scott Curtis (treasurer). That means all the officers are going apart from the Secretary.

That leaves just five board members in post of which three are up for re-election

Up for re-election:
Neil Hutchings
Paul Hedges
Tom Paris

Not up for re-election
Sharon Brinsdon (Trust Secretary)
Bazil Solomon


To quote myself in the other thread, Clearly at the moment there is a divide in the Trust board (not itk here, just going on what's been said and done publicly).

There's a "ruling faction" if you will represented by the Chair and vice Chairs, all of whom are standing down, who are the closest to Clem (and the longest serving on the Trust, the two things not being unrelated!) and then the rest of the board are either a bit more sceptical of Clem or just "go with the flow" types.

Will hopefully be clear from the statements accompanying re-election campaigns where individuals sit within that, so members at least know what they're voting for. Obviously with the Chair, Treasurer and both Vice-Chairs standing down at once, that's a big hit to the "continuity" faction, but I imagine they won't want the Trust to lurch the other way entirely and will have some succession planning in place.

The challenge for the "Change" faction, for want of a better name, is that many of the members who would vote for them have ragequit the Trust over the last few months.


So... does anyone care? is anyone standing? There's clearly a lot of dissatisfaction on here with the Trust, but it does have procedures in place to allow the general fan to change its direction more than the club does.


My personal view is that with the Joint Venture in place (and the retiring administration deserve credit for getting that done, no matter what else they've got wrong) the Trust matters and can't just be left to die and be replaced. I'm keen to back candidates who will restore a healthy distance between club and Trust, and have thought about standing myself but don't really want to.

I care. If done right, this is the perfect opportunity for the Trust to restructure, refocus and regain all the support it has lost over the past couple of years.

If done badly, we lose all hope of holding those running the club [whoever that might be] to account without a 'Not a Penny More' style protest.

If people haven't already seen, it's clearly starting to get a bit underhand already, with this interesting new poster on the other thread the other night - https://thetownend.com/index.php?action=profile;u=12837


Perhaps Mr. 2024 would have some further interesting views for us outsiders.

A small point, but the Trust allowed Bazil Solomon to pose for warm room pictures last year when that was running, which he used for purposes to promote himself as a Conservative councillor.

Not saying people involved in local politics can't be involved in the Trust, but this shouldn't be allowed whatever the party.

I'd agree there. You wear one hat at a time

Did the warm room have anything to do with the Trust? Wasn't that one fan's initiative supported by the Community Foundation? Doesn't sound like ideal behaviour but I don't think it's a conflict of interest as such?

Warm room was nothing to do with the Trust, he turned up on numerous times unexpected. First few times was agreed through the club

And perhaps there was a genuine interest, and i'm not dragging him for his support.

But as a representative of the Trust (and his party); he should have either been more mindful to not use that for self promotion, or the Trust should have asked him not to use his status within for his own benefit.  One hat.

What is warm room?

https://www.warmwelcome.uk/

Bazil Solomon is an opportunistic prick so it doesn’t suprise me

Whichever way the wind blows Brazil Solomon follows.

Didn't he stand as a Tory and then defect to labour or something?

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/18175762.labour-councillor-bazil-solomon-switches-conservative-party/

Bloody hell

I do care, I've kept my Trust membership as I believe in the overall goals... but they're just not being met at the minute. There needs to be daylight between the Club's owners and the Trust, I understand why that didn't happen with Clem but feel this should be a learning moment. If I thought I had something concrete to offer the Trust other than barely contained ginger rage or driving big things around, I would be happy to.

I submitted my application to stand for the board today. Vote Bennett

good luck Bennett

''Gordon Bennett, We've Got Bennett's Back''  :pint:

BENNETT IS OUR LEADER!

Good luck to you.
I don't know what's going on at the club and I don't think I want to know the truth, nor what your agenda is but if it will ruffle feathers and fire a shot across the bow of the board good on you.
Something needs to change, go for it 

In my opinion, this AGM is by far the most important AGM in the Trust’s history. The Trust has grown and established itself ovr the last 5 years but the baton is being handed over.

With that, it has the potential to wipe the slate clean with a new leadership team, which in turn creates a new culture, ethos and opportunity to grow again.

As a membership organisation that’s sole purpose is to represent the voice of the fans, it’s meaningless if fans do not lean in to help shape it’s direction of travel from chipping in with their thoughts to being part of the driven force of change.

The deadline for applications is the end of the month and time is running out. So if there is anyone who is considering standing or has any questions about it, please drop me a DM or hit me up on Twitter, @scuba_thomas.

How does one cast a vote?

As referenced on another post earlier how come your promoting the trust when you negatively liked a batch of anti trust tweets?

A person does not need to endorse every action of the Trust to think that having a Trust is important, it's what's kept a lot of us in. I think many of us will be interested to read the existing board members' elections statements to explain their views on recent events and the Trust's role in them. People can then make their own mind up about whether that's a good enough argument.

This would be rather like saying you shouldn't stand for parliament if you've criticised the government.

As for how to cast a vote, there needs to be at least seven candidates nominated before there is a competitive election process - that's seven plus the three who wish to restand. If there are enough candidates I believe voting will be online for trust members rather than in person, but if it is in person there is a proxy nomination process.

I certainly hope there are enough candidates to make it a competitive election, ideally representing a number of different viewpoints on what the Trust should be doing in the future.

As already previously mentioned, the AGM is a huge opportunity for the damaging sentiment in those tweets to be reversed with a new direction and leadership in place.

Part of the old regime then are we Mr 2024?

No not at all i have seen people say I am so and so of the trust but its not the case. My mate is an ex board member from over a year ago and still stays in touch with the current board, he was telling me about the trust and their current challenges. I asked him about the trust as i am thinking of becoming a member myself and joining but as per my original question why would i become a member when people on the board have effectively slated the organisation they are part of already, it makes no sense to me and makes me not want to join as a member. Its as simple as that and why i asked. I dont understand your reason given drummer becuase if i worked for a company and i slated them in public even if i didnt agree with things they did i would still not do that in public. Its my view and others may not agree and thats fine, but with the 2 people i have referenced still being on the board i wont be looking to join.

Politicking and mudslinging ahead of an AGM? Gosh some cages really have been rattled haven't they.

Good luck to those looking to make a positive change.

Put in an application and reveal your identity, don’t put in an application and throw grenade ” anonymously”. The choice is yours but my mantra towards the Trust is that the Trust is bigger than me and everyone else who sits on that board and it would be wise for anyone standing for election to remember that IMO.

The job of a board member is to represent the voice of the fans at the board. However,  for the record, I’ve not said anything publicly, the words stating the Trust that you are referencing that I have supposedly said were of many different authors to the tweets.

The trust is not an employer, it is a democratic, membership organisation. Glad I  could clear that up for you.

If you don't want these two to be part of the Trust board, surely the only way to ensure that would to be a member and stand and vote against them?

No is not an employer but people should surely act and behave in a way that is a good representation of the trust, my reference to a company was simply just an example of how in other situations / environments where people behave in a poor manner they have to align to policies and when those are broken there are consequences. I think we both know that the trust isn't a company, but hopefully you get my point now. Not tying to be clever but whether you volunteer for a organisation, are a boy scout there are rules and behaviours you have to adhere to, otherwise you find yourself no longer within those organisations.

Drummer you have gone off on a political tangent and not stuck to the point of my message and argument with your thoughts, (deflecting away from areas that you don't want to discuss maybe), any organisation whether a not for profit, charity, company should be aim to have a team that works together to achieve their aims, its never about one person. However a rogue member that attacks and undermines the organisation they are part of and supposed to support in my view isn't a good look and not one i wish to be part of and sign up to.  I think perhaps it needs a complete rethink on their aims and how they can work together as a team for the good of the fans, but perhaps a complete start from scratch is needed and not have legacy board members who have history of bizarre and unprofessional actions that i have eluded to above. If that was the case and the decks were clear without legacy baggage then maybe i would stand.

Jesus christ, this is excrutiating

I can't work out who is who. But the trust was a fucking state so roll on change

I would like to say how interesting it is but sadly I can’t :eek:

Boy Scouts? Ooh suit you. It's giving Ray Mears vibes. All I can think of now is the Trust HQ as a Scout Masters hut  :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

For that reason, I vote Bennett. Bennett FTW

Actually no, metaphorically fucking burn it all down






NB: Bennett, please don't turn out to be a Scout Leader
Cue, posts pic of himself in Saharan Sand shorts and a pair of Birkenstocks  :cry:

If needed, Bennett, you've got my vote.

So the trust board was full of Tories, need some of us left wing agitators back. Where are you Paul D and co. No cozying up to the board with us lot!
Vamos el revolucion de Don Bennett!

Whilst we all knew the Trust had become a complete sham this level of mudslinging is spectacular.

Should have guessed it was would end up like this when Mytton criticised sections of the supporters in his resignation tweet.

I’m half expecting Spencer et al to go and work directly for Morfuni and try and actively undermine the future Trust if they are more militant towards the club.

The Trust, as a 'democratic' organisation is in a difficult position, and members of the board are in not a dissimilar position to MPs and other elected members. Are they representatives? If so, of whom? Is it the whole fanbase, the members of the Trust, or those who actually elected them. Whatever the answer to that question, how do they trawl opinion? If they trawled opinion just on here, how many different opinions would they encounter, never mind the whole fanbase. They have a mission statement which is roughly equivalent to a manifesto, but it deals with generalities not detailed policies and strategies. Further complications follow when one or two of the board members are appointed to the board of the football club, where they are likely to be required to accede to some kind of confidentiality clause (perfectly normal in any institution), so for them, even feeding complete and accurate information back to the Trust board may be difficult.

Alternatively, they may consider themselves to be delegates - as of course most MPs do and the Trades Unions have done with their card voting system.  If that's the case, it opens the way for forceful individuals with their own agendas to pursue those agendas with minimum of checks
and balances from the electorate. That's what happened when I was on the board for a short period quite a long time ago. It doesn’t matter whether such agendas are good/popular or not. If they are pursued without the general support of the 'constituency' they risk coming unstuck.

The Trust is clearly in a difficult place now and mistakes have clearly been made; but it is not simply a problem of individual members of the board going in the wrong direction. It is a structural problem similar to that faced by many democratic institutions are fa ing - lack of clarity about where their authority comes from.

How many Trust members are there🤔

It’s on the home page of their website.

Thanks Fraser.

I’d be happy to stand for election to the trust, but I’m not an existing member so does that rule me out? I’ve never been a member before, and am not convinced the ground JV is a good idea, plus I live in Bath so plenty of reasons why I might not be a popular choice! But I’d love to find out where the bodies are buried and lobby for a community ownership bid and/or fan representation on the board, and generally try and sort the trust comms out.

You had to be a member on the 31st Dec I believe but you can always approach them after the AGM, once you are a member.

Thanks Manc. As things stand I wouldn’t want to be a member, so that rules me out, but hopefully this will change following the election of a more considered and professional board.  Can the trust co-opt people who aren’t members I wonder, or does that defeat the concept of one member one vote?

They can co-opt people if the board is not full post AGM, but members have first dibs essentially. Someone becoming a board member probably has to join at that point though.

Waffle.

So basically don't grumble in public if things aren't right?

Nah don't subscribe to that at all.

If I am correct  - if not enough people put their name forward to stand for election and have been nominated by a Trust member they will automatically get a place on the Trust board, but if there are more names than spaces on the board then an election will be held whereby Trust members will vote.

The new board will vote for who they decide will take over as chair.

I would assume there will be a hand over period as well so existing board members can help those incoming learn the rules and make the introductions, there is a co opt option but that you would imagine to bring in anyone that may have something to add to the board that they may be missing in their skill sets, I don't think they have to be a member.

Yes, no vote if there aren't at least eleven candidates this time.

Nominations close at noon tomorrow for any waverers - not really sure how quickly they'll announce the results/candidates.

Is there a reason for so many Board member slots?  Seems unlikely that you'd get an effective Board with so many people to listen to and work out a sense of direction.  I don't mean that in terms of not needing to listen - of course the Board should work towards the benefit of it's members, but once they have that view understood, having 11 people trying to work out what to do with it must be cumbersome.

Different roles within the Trust, (fundraising, treasurer, vice chair, chair etc) but that is the maximum board members according to their articles, dont mean to say they fill all 11 spots

It's too many, you can fill roles with volunteers, you don't need them as Board members.

So they are too thinly spread but now they want too many board members.

Yes and yes - Board member should be there for decision making and direction.  Volunteers and volunteer roles are fine for doing the donkey work required, but you can't expect to operate effectively and efficiently with 11 people trying to run the thing.

I believe you start to get very messy beyond probably 6 or 7 people being at the top table.

I'm not saying you don't need more than 6 or 7 people to get the work of the Trust done, but the Board is usually a very different beast to the machinations of those getting the footwork done, no?

A more focused Trust, a leaner Board and then an army of helping hands + some paid for professional support (Legal/Financial expertise), would be far more effective in my mind.

Could not disagree more

The board members are the volunteers? The more board members the better as you get more diverse view points? The key is that people on the board respect that the decision has been made and get on with it.

I was suggesting a more professional set-up - a limited board focused on setting direction, making key decisions and overseeing the main two projects (ground and representation).  Then you have roles identified that are filled by volunteers, based on personal skills and a desire to get involved.  It seems odd to me that you'd need to be on the Board to do work for the Trust - is that what you are suggesting is the current set-up?

As an example - the Trust would need someone to be involved in managing communications, social media, website etc.  That isn't, in my mind, a Board level role.  It could be filled by one or several people, dedicating a number of hours to the cause, that have prior experience in those fields.  They then report up to a Board member responsible for Overall Communication strategy, but likely also responsible for the membership admin and membership marketing teams.

Just because it is a volunteer org, does not mean it has to be all equal sharing and everyone gets a seat at the big boys table.  On a personal level, I can't see why anyone would want me on the Board given location and time zone.  But, I could certainly do work for the Trust.

I'm not saying that you need to be on the board to volunteer but from what I know the only people volunteering are the board members, I'm not sure where you think all these volunteers would come from?

You also must remember that the members do have a say and approve all the current activities at the AGM.

If the Trust was operating in a professional manner, with a single website (as an example of issues they have had), pushing membership numbers and advertising the roles it needed people to fill, then I think they would get them. 1400+ have joined, they can easily get that above 2k I'd say, with the right operation.  I have previously given my time to the Trust without being on the board and even without being a member at some points.

As it is, who knows what they need doing?

I’m with Rob on this one & many years ago helped the trust when volunteers were asked for - I had no desirable or expert skills, just time really.

…but…back then I was an avid match goer every week. I knew who the Trust were. I knew who the board were and they communicated what they were working on.

When a lot of things were going on they rent a conference room and just have an open invite meeting. Where they’d go through what they had been doing, what they plan on doing. What they needed help with.

If very much felt like a board calling the shots & keeping their members in the loop. I guess kinda like a manager with employees or even a board with managers under them.

Now it almost sounds like the Trust is a closed shop. The board is the Trust. They do what they do amongst themselves and that’s it. I wouldn’t know any of them from Adam and I don’t know what they are working on with regards to the club (apart from the AB minutes)

Do they still have open meetings? Would it be a good idea to start them again? How many of the Trust members feel the trust actually represents them. How many members know what the Trust even do?

Now, I will quantify with the fact - STFC is not my life anymore like it was back then. So, a lot of the stuff I’ve mentioned could be things that are happening and I’m just not seeing / hearing / paying enough attention to.

It just comes across to me like the board is the Trust and members are subscribers. Almost like Netflix, we have a subscription in our household but aren’t involved in any decision making or action than Netflix undertake - maybe a better example would be a lapsed gym membership. You still pay but don’t see any benefit or have any idea what your money actually goes towards.

The Trust of the past were far more willing to butt heads with the owners or board of the club. Now it seems they ask a few questions, get fed some info and pass it down the chain.

A lot of fans never bought into the Trust idea before as they couldn't see any tangible action or results. I'm sure there's a lot of work behind the scenes and the need to focus attention and control emotion on things which are most important but it's gone backwards so much since the earlier days.

The purchase of the ground was rightly top priority and I think politics mean the Trust are afraid to get their elbows out as a result.

I don't think it's lack of transparency, I personally feel it's a lack of credibility and engagement. Many fans interacted with the Trust members and board and chipped in before, but it seems siloed now. Nobody really cares what they are doing or what they have to say either. I know that's a brutal take on it, but it's an honest assessment.

It’s not brutal, it’s the truth. An organisation who’s sole reason for being is to prod club governance when it gets out of line is completely silent as the club is the worst governed it’s been in 20+ years. And they become defensive when that’s pointed out to them

Fully agree with this, and sorry to bring in Bath City as an example again but this is how the (fan-elected) board operates.  The board is a combination of salaried and volunteer roles, and there are working groups with specific priorities/objectives and staffed by different people with relevant expertise who then report back to the board.  For example, increasing attendances, ground maintenance, improving matchday experience, social media/comms and so on.

If your a trust member then you need to attend their AGM so they can explain what they have been up to and then be questioned by members

I cancelled my annual direct debit, but am i still a member until March when it started?

I see the below when logging in:

Membership plan #**** was placed on ** March 2023 and is currently hold.

Any ideas? Totally lost faith in them but would consider attending to see whats going on.

Did you receive the notice of Annual General Meeting email on 2nd Jan? I think that would probably only go to current members.

But yes, people who've stopped paying but have paid in advance is a strange grey area around membership.

Thanks- no i don't see that one. still get the comms updates but nothing about the agm

No you are definitely on hold

The following existing board members are seeking re-election:
Neil Hutchings
Tom Paris

Nemo Note: Paul Hedges was originally expected to re-stand and has clearly now decided not to

In addition, we have received applications from the following new candidates:
Adrian Male
Andy Bennett
Chris Howell
James Phipps
Nicholas Coote

Despite there being fewer candidates than positions, in order to be elected applicants require 50% of the votes cast.

Firstly, good on Bennett.

Secondly, please ready your best Adrian Mole jokes.

Finally, here are the candidates' statements: https://truststfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AGM-2024-Society-Board-Application-Statements.pdf?mc_cid=d2f6135807&mc_eid=b6f3ac7ed5

I want to vote for 2 people

To be clear you vote yes/no/abstain on each individual, you can vote in favour of all or in favour of none (if you truly believe in chaos!)

Lovely stuff. Andy and James it is for me then

Its slightly disapointing there is no one younger on the list

I think my statement is pretty open and my prior swearing/ranting on the subject may speak for itself, but I am Happy to field any questions anyone has in DM

I think asking candidates from certain employment backgrounds didn't help

Can I ask you to stop being polite?

You can in DM

Well done, Bennett, and good luck mate.

I cancelled my direct debit I think in September/October time (£5 a month) as there were seldom updates from them, I never got replies to emails and seemed to lack any kind of direction. I didn't feel I got any value for my contribution.

I think with passionate fans like yourself and the financial clout and business acumen of James Phipps the Trust can hopefully become an independent voice of the fans again that we can get behind.

I'm also a BA, and this made me smile “it’s always been that way”. Infuriating :)

Good luck Bennett.

Well having read each candidates notes i can safely say i will not be voting for some of them.

My largest fear with the trust is that with all these changes, its direction over corrects and it becomes antagonistic and represent of the very angry minority. Not the angry or discontent majority.

(https://manhattan.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20072942/mr-t-in-the-role-of-ba-baracus-in-the-a-team.jpeg)

It’s been a challenging couple of years, particularly in the last 6 months or so.

The Trust is going to go through a huge reset. Whilst it’s daunting practically starting again and there will a huge number of hours dedicated to the cause, I fundamentally believe there is a huge opportunity too.

I joined the Trust 2 years ago with the belief that success on the pitch can only be achieved by a well run club off the pitch, which is where the Trust holds the club accountable to ensure that it is. The facts speak for themselves for where we are on this and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, with a complete change of leadership pending, I wholeheartedly believe that from the two of us re-standing for re-election will form a baseline to push forwards. Those standing for election for the first time, from reading their supporting statements, I think will be huge assets for the Trust too where likeminded individuals can form a strong, cohesive and dynamic board to really push in the way we all desire the Trust to hold the club accountable. There is a balance to this though. The Trust is not a vehicle for being antagonistic without cause or reason to. It needs to be be measured and strategic towards the desired outcome.

I hope from my supporting statement that my opinions are clear to what direction, ethos and characteristics the Trust needs to adopt, being different to the general recent reputation that precedes the Trust. We need to aim to grow the membership and represent the fanbase but also to have the courage to have those adult conversations with the club about its direction off the field.

To all those members that have stopped direct debits in protest or any other reason, I sincerely hope that if re-elected, I can be a driving force in demonstrating the changes we all want from the Trust ASAP and see your return. Like it or loath it, the Trust is the only vehicle that has the capability to represent the fanbase and holds the club accountable for its actions. BUT!  Our voice is stronger when we work together as a fanbase and we will need everyone’s support, thoughts and opinions to make this happen.

If you are a member and eligible to vote, please make your voice heard and your vote count. Meanwhile, if any members want to have a chat prior to voting, feel free to DM me and we can have a chat.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

The worst thing that can happen is the board is full of like minded individuals. Be that a group all thoroughly in the pro Clem camp as may have been the case in the past, or whatever stance it happens to be.

For the trust to be effective the board should be a group of people that represent the fanbase and have different and opposing views, where healthy debate can lead the trust to take a sensible path forwards that everyone on the board gets behind. An echo chamber is the last thing we need.

I very much agree that an echo chamber (of any persuasion) is an unwanted outcome. But 'likeminded' doesn't have to mean people who agree on every detail and I don't think that's what was being implied - more a group of people pulling in the same direction with one purpose, rather than a board divided between those cosying up to friends and those actually furthering the aims of the society they represent.

I don't really know any of the candidates personally but am fairly pleased to see the calibre and experience being brought to the table. (A few misplaced apostrophes did cause some concern but I think I'm over it.)

100% agree with you Riddick. I very much believe that now and more than ever, the Trust needs more strong and diverse voices to ensure the Trust moves in the right direction but the Trust needs to engage more with members, and the wider fanbase, to ensure all thoughts and opinions are heard and form part of the internal debate how the fanbase is represented publicly.

So please allow me to correct that statement Riddick, “likeminded individuals that agree that it’s time for a change of direction with how the Trust operate, it’s purpose and how it represents the fanbase”.

From a candidate background perspective, based on the supporting statements,  I think everyone standing for election will diversify the board to create that debate internally that you speak of where needed. I can assure you, I’m very much in agreement that the Trust should not be an echo chamber or blindly operates on the opinion of a small group of key influencers.

All men which is fine but I can’t help but think it would help if there was a bit more balance.

I voted for three of them, abstained on three.  I also voted against two of the policies being suggested - they appeared to be extremely restrictive to me, for an organisation that does, from time to time, need to be about open debate.  It's also very clear from my postings that I am vehemently against a Board of between 6 and 12 members!

I think it is a bit disappointing that so few have put themselves forward, and having some women involved would probably be a good idea as well.  This does strike at one of the personal statements - the Trust really needs to focus on building it's membership base.  I think that goes to the core of my own personal opinion that it needs to be much more focused on what it is working towards.  To borrow a corporate golden child - Will it Make the Boat Go Faster?

Drummer, given your an existing board member who as we have previously highlighted dissed the org you volunteer for, what have you learnt from this experience which makes you think you wont do the same again and attack your own organisation. Maybe I am missing something but given you have been with the board along with 1 other re standing why have you not undertaken the key items you highlighted in your blurb and on here before? Sometimes when an organisation such as the trust has seen such issues as they have in the last year in my view its better to have a complete restart from scratch. I guess what I am saying is you want to res-stand but you were part of the old regime that in your blurb seem to suggest failed the fans for 2 years and you stated a lot was wrong, but why didn't you do something about that as a board member? Why should people vote for you to remain when this occurred. I am not being harsh just trying to work out your side of things.
Looking at the statements and profile of people i cant agree with your statement on the backgrounds and suitability, you have a group of men, no ladies or anyone from more diverse backgrounds so struggling to see how the new board will provide a better diverse position?

Without knowing, I’d hazard a guess no females put themselves forward.

Indeed - hence my post.  A lot of hard work needs to be done in rationalising what the Trust is aiming for, and then in expanding the membership base and seeking new talent to get involved.  It should not just be about the Board either, there should be plenty of opportunities for Volunteer roles to support the Trust towards it's aims.  That way you can go out and market for the right talent to get involved, and those people may be ready for a Board role next time around.

There is no reason, with some form of representation or ownership as the primary goal, that the Trust can't be looking to get towards 4k+ as it's membership base.  For reference, that's what Wrexham had before the takeover, I believe.  Not saying it would be easy though.

Talent is the word. I’d hope that only people who thought they could make a difference have put themselves forward.

Shoehorning people in isnt what’s needed.

Are you one of those standing Mr 2024?

Nah James stood down

I dont think the response to interrogating candidates needs to automatically go to, 'well why are you not standing' everytime, its hardly the way to have proper debate.

If that is what this candidate did previously then i think it fair to ask those questions honestly.

Diversity is more than gender and there is no boundary to who is welcome to be a member and stand for election.

In regards to your comments of “not doing something about it”, without going into specifics, the board is bound by collective responsibility.

However, I can assure you that I voiced my opposing opinions on a lot of things and my hope for a change in direction has never been higher.

I hope to be part of that changing force to make the Trust align with the general sentiment of what has been said by many external to the Trust board. If I am not re-elected, it would be personally disappointing but my hope remains high in a change of direction.


I don’t think it will make the boat go faster but I believe we need the Trust to engage more with the fanbase, paid or free members, to ensure all opinions are represented. At present, the Trust membership numbers, according to the Trust website, sits at circa 1,500 - that’s only representative of 15 to 20% of Saturday’s attendance, which means only a minority of fans are subscribed to hearing the latest news and information to how the Trust are representing the fanbase.

Would love to see that increase so that as many thoughts and opinions are gathered to ensure all segments of the fanbase are included and contributing to shaping how the Trust represents and operates into the future.

That isn't what I'm getting at. Would just be nice to narrow it down to who he is if he is standing. He is clearly very passionate about the trust and has a bee in his bonnet about Drummer Boys criticism and liked tweets.

From previous chats, Swindontown2024 isn't a member, so can't vote or stand

I see. I hadn't noticed his other posts.

Sounds like a terrible version of Guess Who..  :sherlock:

I don't subscribe to the "run yourself or don't criticise" theory a lot do.....but I do wonder why he is taking a few liked tweets to heart if he isn't even a member.

I’m guessing it’s “Sam”.

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

The Trust AGM is this Wednesday 7pm kick off in the Legends Lounge.
Voting is still open until Wednesday midday

Confirmation that all candidates were elected to the board. No news on the new Chair/Vice-Chair yet.

https://twitter.com/TrustSTFC/status/1763142170612051986

Bennett, why haven't you sorted everything yet?

Fuck sake Bennett you fucking Clem stoodge

Can't believe the new Trust leadership haven't found a buyer for the club and facilitated a take over yet. Sack the board.

Bring back James Spencer - at least he was active on twitter

I have let you all down. I'm sorry

Don't we get to see the vote counts?  I want to know who the unpopular ones are, the ones we can pressure.

In 2023, the vote counts were released a few days later: https://truststfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TrustSTFC-2023-AGM.pdf

No candidate received more than four out of 156 votes against - and that was our old friend Bazil who is literally a Tory councillor which I imagine a few people would vote against on principle. Only two objected to JS.

What was the reason for James Spencer packing it in before the AGM anyway?

Put on the naughty step?

Didn't he go rogue arguing with people that disagreed with him

Thank you for your inquiry, a Trust email will be coming to members shortly confirming details of the AGM x

Shouldn't Bennett have some kind of rosette by his name or on his avatar?

Bamboo is the TEF creative, I'm sure he can hook my avatar up

Wish is my command (kinda), couldn't find any super HQ images of The Button Man but oh well.

I felt a Masonic Mourning Rosette was quite apt
:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:



Edit: Updated image at request of Sir Bennett CBE ;)

That suits him, I reckon

wait, you dickheads voted bennet onto the trust board? hahahahahaha.

Nothing like a baptism of fire for the new trust board after the latest Axis revelations - although I'm sure Clem will be telling them it is nothing to worry about and it is all standard stuff

You are my favourite

I know that obviously they are in transistion bit i would still be keen to see the trust make some sort of statement after the last 2 days news

"We're all getting on fine and the biscuits were divine"
There you go, the latest statement

Trust intro email went out this morning, showing the voting patterns - lots more votes against than normal but everyone still got 83% + in favour.

Neil Hutchings chair, James Phipps vice, Scott Curtis (former treasurer who resigned) seems to have agreed to stay on interim

Only one board member minus a photo in the intro email by the look of it.
Will have to assume that Bennett's avatar is a true likeness in the meantime.

Imagine if Richmond from the IT Crowd was a keen cyclist, and you've pretty much got it.

Almost wet myself laughing at that! (Sorry Mr B!)

you rascal!

Don't think yesterday's Trust email to members has been posted here so...


We just wanted to write to you and give you an update on everything happening behind the scenes. Our first board meeting involved a lot of introductions, paperwork and documentation, so we know we’ve been quieter than we hoped to be.

We want you to know that we are putting in the effort and are excited about the opportunities we, as a new board, can achieve with time. As you’ll have seen from previous emails, we elected people to their new roles and work has started to transition some of the admin work to the new board members.

However, we also wanted to take this opportunity to set out a few commitments:

• We will make public comments on events when it is appropriate to do so but it does not mean that we are not listening to our members and discussing issues internally.
• We will not over-abuse the power of a statement but it does not mean that we are not sitting idle.
  
• As a board, we will act as a single voice to the benefit of TrustSTFC members.

With this in mind:

Axis NSW
We are aware of the recent news article surrounding Axis NSW. However, as this is external to Swindon Town, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this stage (see Commitment 1) but we are closely monitoring the situation.

Fairgame
We understand a report will be shared in April 2024, in which Fairgame brings unquestionable expertise and independence. We are glad the Trust could introduce Fairgame to the club and that the club has engaged with them, which is a great outcome. We hope this will improve transparency and we look forward to seeing their inaugural report.

EFL fine
We have also taken note of a fine against the club owner (not the Club) for failure to disclose share transfers, hopefully drawing a line under this issue. We hope that lessons have been learnt.

Prices
We are delighted the club has chosen to lower single ticket prices and frozen season ticket prices. In the recent Advisory Board, we expressed our disappointment at removing the Family 2 ticket category. Still, it is good news to see prices frozen or lowered when costs of living are rising.

Trust engagement
We want to maximise how we engage with you, and for each email to be meaningful. We are working out a strategy on this, and further communication will come, please give us a little time to work things out.

Timelines
As per Commitment 3, we will speak as a Board and will act with due consideration. This may mean that things take a little longer than a single person can respond, but as a collective, we believe this is the right approach.

Relationship with owners
We will seek to positively engage with Owners, by representing Supporter’s legitimate concerns, opinions and ideas without fear or favour. Where possible we will offer our advice and help to support the Club in the future to attain our mutual desire for success. We will also be prepared to call out issues that need to be improved upon or are in our view a hindrance to achieving success.

Vice Chair was on BBC wilts at 26mins if you fancy a listen
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hg40nh

His weird, high pitched nervous laugh is amusing

A good listen, I thought.

https://truststfc.com/2024/04/05/reflection-and-our-focus/

This is a better place for it - I have removed my post :)

I think they plan to encourage & support…

Meh…

It’s all too late to encourage and support the owner in any aspect.

The trust (no pun intended) has already been broken, and we can’t take a word the club say at face value. I can not for the life of me see the club changing anyone’s mind that has been made up on that.

I do feel it’s a bit of a soft statement from the Trust and let’s the club off the hook, how many chances do the club need, how many lies do they need to tell before the Trust start demanding change?

The damage has been done, and unfortunately the Trust don’t seem keen to do much about it. They are just toeing the line.

Meh the horse for all that bolted 2 years ago, it’s more softly softly stuff that Morfuni will just take advantage of.

The joint venture has ironically ruined the Trust as they are terrified of upsetting the club and not having a ‘working relationship’.

Think we can count the Trust out of mobilising the fanbase.

Load of bollocks.

They 100% get the club to proof read that before submitting to the public. You cannot convince me otherwise.

The trust are simply not fit for purpose. They are supposed to represent the fans. They absolutely do not speak for the current majority.

Abolish.

I think that's alright really. It's a bit later than I would like but better late than never and a clear shift in approach. Proof will be in what happens next.

Isn't this the 'new' board, you all wanted?

https://x.com/danwood_adver/status/1776289030486851894?s=46&t=sUQ-fFgelrF5oqTmo-D8tA

They havent been paying on time have they

People can make up their own mind on the Trust statement but here's my defence of it: it's a trap. There's a bunch of totally reasonable stuff in there that we highly suspect - but can't prove - that the club are breaking. The club can't publicly disagree with a lot of it, and if (when) they break it, that's reasonable grounds for.complaint. The rent thing is a good example, also the family friendly characters reference, we all know who they mean.

Totally get that a lot of fans are further along past the giving the.club a chance thing but this reads as trying to prove the malice to others - or, ideally, get the club to genuinely improve.

Not the first hint, is it?

Nail, head. Can't accuse them of anything without evidence. If there's no shady shit going on, those totally reasonable requests will be easy to meet. If not...

Independent is the word you are struggling to find

Some are happy

I think ‘some’ wanted a ‘new’ board who would shout loud and call Clem a cunt and ask @STFC questions on twitter - as if they would even acknowledge it let alone answer it. Of course those ‘some’ call for that type of board are the type of people who would do the sorta things they wanted…but none of them will actually put their name forward.

For me, the statement is a bit to ‘nice’ for my liking but kinda get the point the new board can’t go in all guns blazing at this point. They’ve made it clear what they expect to see from the club going forward and they have offered their help.

Hopefully when the club inevitably do not deliver on any of the set out points and completely refuse any ‘encouragement or support’ from the Trust - then they earn they keep so to speak.

Let’s see what they do after they given the club ‘a chance’ that will be the important bit

"We will seek to positively engage with Owners, by representing Supporter’s legitimate concerns, opinions and ideas without fear or favour. Where possible we will offer our advice and help to support the Club in the future to attain our mutual desire for success. We will also be prepared to call out issues that need to be improved upon or are in our view a hindrance to achieving success."

It has been an issue for Companies House, never mind the Trust, identifying the actual shareholders.  Let alone the indebtedness of the those shareholders to third parties.  There is a JV with an acquisition agreement that includes legal obligations to develop the Ground.  The Trust is still being kept in the dark on ownership and owner indebtedness and there are no plans or funding sources identified for Ground development.  Only evidence of late payments.  Of under resourced management in terms of admin and coaching. Of inadequate training facilities.  Of a pitch in decline.  Of the near guaranteed worst ever finish in STFC history.  Of falling season ticket sales compared to last year.

The Trust needs to wake the **** up and smell the coffee.  Its duties are to its members, the club and its supporters.  Not to the owners for the time being of the club.  On the whole, clubs either move forward or stagnate and soon enough decline.  If we are not moving forward after everything the Eadie Trust has gifted, then that is most definitely NOT satisfactory and answers need to be sought NOW.  And spare us any "calling out" when it is all too late.

We've been (quite rightly) trying the constructive partnership approach long enough.

No it's not - 'new' is the word I used.

I think setting traps would have been the right way to have gone 6-12 months ago. Can be really effective too just like those early PMQ's between Starmer and Johnson. But feel that there isn't really a huge silver bullet in the list of encouragements that would have any immediate short term impact, especially with how perilous our situation is now for immediate action to prevent entering non-league in 25/26. The one that's most interesting is the late payment of rent, but I feel the club could easily swing that as another admin error or prioritising playing budget, or fans need to put more money in etc that won't divide the fanbase anymore than they already are.

The family friendly characters and converting loans to equity points I feel could easily be addressed by club too. Clem always has a quick defence when it comes to the character questions already and the wider fanbase don't seem to be really aware of whose frequenting the boardroom/matchday hospitality. I'm sure with the equity front they'd have an easy no to give.

This is where I'm at with it. The wording is way to nicey nicey for me but it also reads that they might be trying to trap the club in to certain things if they don't cooperate and act correctly.

I think it is a kind ultimatum of commitments the Trust want the club to meet. That's how I read it. Although I still wince and become triggered at the phrase ''critical friend''

I do hope that the new board of the Trust does indeed become a genuine ''critical friend'' and that they most definitely stop being Press Liaison Officers for the owner{s}

Proof of the pudding will be in the eating of course. I wasn't expecting a gung-ho approach and showing all of their hand with an aggressive attack but it did feel a smidge ''too nice''. As above though, there is a list of expectations laid down by the Trust to the Club, and I want them to hold them to it at the first signs of failing to do so. Then I will be more assured that the Trust is on track in representing the supporters first, before any cosying up to the STFC board goes on {as was evidently the case with some over excited teenagers former Trust board members}

 :pint:

If it was the ‘old’ board I’d be very much it’s the same old, same old.
…but…as it’s a new board I think they need to go in with the nice approach first before they do in with the loaded gun so to speak.

Supporters expect too much from the trust.  It seems to me there isn't much they can actually do .

James Phipps on Radio Wiltshire tonight, not sure if it's just a "getting to know the new board" interview or something else.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hkq7s9

Listen from 10mins

So not new information, just talking about the statement made in the week. What was interesting was that Phipps chose to raise the cashflow in particular as a concern - RobT will be pleased with that.

Not sure if anyone on here works in/has dealings with HR departments, but just thinking about it a bit and re-reading the Trust statement... they've basically put the club on a performance improvement plan (PIP) right?

The statement is "here are some things you've done well, here are areas for improvement, here are some targets we'd like to agree" structurally.

Made me smile, but I suppose the problem is... the Trust can't actually sack the club!

But once they publicly miss those targets or fail to make the improvements, the Trust would have grounds to be publicly critical of the owner, which they currently don't really have...

The Swindon Town Supporters Trust Vice Chair has said that he does not believe the club are fully aware of the scale of negative feelings among supporters.

James Phipps, the newly elected Vice Chair of the Trust, was speaking to BBC Radio Wiltshire and said that the new board was hoping to canvas supporter feelings as widely as they could to help bring those concerns to Swindon.

He said: “I have spoken to lots and lots of fans who for the first time in their entire life are looking at not having a season ticket next year and that makes me deeply sad and very frustrated.

“What you are trying to do is make sure that we are bringing all voices because you can sometimes have a very vocal few, but we are there to represent all.

“We need to make sure that every single one of those is heard so that there are sensible conversations and sensible things that we can go back to the club with and say, ‘this is black and white, you are going to get a tough job in renewing season tickets for next year’.

“Let’s put a number on that because we have got enough members now that we can give you a number that is very indicative that it will be tough.

“Whereas I think that the club felt with a few wins, etcetera, it will be ok, and I am not sure they understand in some ways the level of feeling around the fans.

“So, we are there to encompass all of those people and then when we are talking to the club, we are giving them very clear, very concise, and factually led conversations.”

Phipps said that the Trust had to walk the line between being critical and working with the club, but the new board had already made their feelings clear.

He said: “What we are trying to do is things that will help in the medium and long term and to do that you do have to maintain a working relationship with the club.

“What I can tell you is that some of those conversations since the new board have come in have been very direct with the club.

“We are very clear in our statement that there are some red lines we are starting to put in and if they do certain things then we will react to that very publicly and very clearly.”

All sounds very promising from the trust. Proof will be in the pudding because we know it will end up going wrong at some point

I think that line about red lines fits neatly with what some have suggested regarding setting expectations/traps. I saw a lot of anger when the statement came out and I get where people are coming from, they're frustrated and they want change now. Personally, I was happy with what was said as long as there is a strong stance when the club fails on any of the key requirements - that's what's been lacking until now.

I see Trust member Nick Coote has deleted his twitter account. Definite James Spencer vibes there.

Really, probably for the best

I've not seen anything wrong with his tweets, trying to explain in more detail.  The exchange I saw was around a fan claiming the trust had to fund 50% off all developments, which is wrong but the fan wouldn't have it.

I actually thought James Phipps did a pretty good job of articulating the ground ownership and responsibilities in his interviews.  The previous Board were very close to the project around purchasing the ground, and struggled a little to offer the same calculated separation of responsibilities, so I can understand some fans being a little confused.

It is now clear that the JV is the owner and custodian of the land upon which the football club operates.  The JV approves leases and development requests, and in both cases has provided a long term lease to STFC whom must determine their plans for development. 

The JV risks having to offer the ownership back to the Council if certain triggers are not met (although it seems unlikely the Council would actually force a sale back to them).

The club is expected to present plans to the JV (where they have a say as joint owners, but nor a controlling interest).  The JV's other partners (the Trust and Eady Estate) have a desire to push for development due to their common interest in seeing STFC be a success.

The only grey area for me, is whether or not the JV has the ability to enforce action - for example, if the club leaves the ground to fall into a state of disrepair, can the Freeholder enforce maintenance?  I would presume it can.

That wasn't the tweet that causes the furore though. That tweet clarifying 50% funding was completely fine.

The one that did was where he was gaslighting fans to lower their expectations of ground redevelopment, specifically replying to a tweet which was the plans the actual club outlined in 21/22.

If anyone wants to ask Tom and I non-cheese related questions on the LSPOD, you have any opportunity
https://x.com/LoathedStranger/status/1778053297028403589

Keith Melon sees what he wants to see. He also used the cleaning of the Rolex clock as an example of what the money for ground maintenance was for.

Interesting snippets from James Phipps in the Adver this morning. Apologies if this is old news from previous interviews but it was new to me:

“What we have tried to do is to say that these are the lines we want you to know."

 “I can’t force somebody to give honesty, but what we can say is that if you are not honest and it is clear you are not honest then you are going to be challenged by The Trust on that.

“If you break the rules, which you did both with HMRC and the Football League, etcetera, then that is not going to go unanswered by The Trust.”

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/24245789.truststfc-become-critical-friend-swindon-town/

That's the one I saw, and he seemed to get a bit of stick for that. I've not seen the one you mention.

I thought his tweet was more like Reg's old line on Ground redevelopment 'wait until the diggers and builders are on site before believing it's happening'.

The LSPod Trust Q & A pod is up with Bennett and Former Drummer Boy (Andy & Tom).

It's certainly one for any connoisseur of nervous laughter.

Cant wait to listen on the way home with gritted teeth!

A good listen I thought, answered the questions they could.

I thought it was alright. Bit concerning how seemingly unprepared they are for anything going south, but I'm not *surprised* by that. Most of Twitter seems to think that it was pure Clem apologism.

I do think quite a lot of the online fanbase simply won't be happy unless the Trust issue a statement that just reads "they're all a bunch of crooked cunts" in size 72 impact at this point.

They didn’t actually answer many questions though, it was very MP esq.
Lots of pivoting.

We still have no idea if the club has missed a rental payment for example.

Surely the rent within 30 days needs to be in the terms of agreement and if it’s not they’ve made a mistake.

Admin error.

This has now been explicitly stated by the Trust.

I reckon payments didn't reach the account on the day they thought, but since "late" was loosely defined until now, at least publically, then this is a clean slate with a clear bounding and consequence.

Fair enough IMO

This again highlights the problem doesn't, We shouldn't have to think we should know. It's a simple yes or no that the trust should be answering when asked. Has there been any missed or late payments

I've not listened to it, what was the question on the rent?

Have they paid it on time or have they missed any payments

Guessing it wasn't a yes or no answer by the comments.

It was some sort of politicians answer - between them - Rich and the Trust guys- they just seemed to be giggling about the questions. Not sure why they all seemed reasonable.

The questions were pretty... fierce. It's a bit awkward asking people difficult questions, even if they're not your own. Rich probably wouldn't consider himself to be Jeremy Paxman exactly!

Dodged the question by explaining what they’ve set out in the recent comm about making it public if it’s late.

Bizarrely there was no follow up question  :doh:

About half way through, nothing groundbreaking so far and not sure it’s warranted some of the outrage on Twitter.

Outrage? I've genuinely not seen that

Anyone fancy dropping the link to this please?

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5MkakOqLB4e3loxPCBCnYE?si=707411603db44c91

History suggests that if the question is whether rent is paid on time or not and there is obfuscation, you can probably deduce the answer is it has not.

Is it possible that it’s as simple as the club pay the rent on the day it’s due, but the JV don’t receive the money for 3 working days?

I know this means giving the club the benefit of the doubt (which they don’t really deserve at the moment), but could explain a discrepancy.

I think as Dean says, this is easily cleared up if the Trust want to. But I guess we know going forward what "late" means.

Indeed

Ref late payments, the fact it wasnt clearly answered is all the answer you need. Yes there have been late payments. If they had been on time the trust would have no problem confirming.

The challenge there is ref the Trusts role as a critical friend, and how critical its appropriate to be, during what timescale, and to who.

This new board are prepped to be more confrontational, who knows if thats good or bad, lets see over time.

Why can’t a schedule just be released saying when the club was invoiced and when money was received?

This isn’t commercially sensitive info, and open & transparent keeps getting preached so there should be no issue letting people see this if everything is ok?!

That would put this to bed once and for all, but all the skirting round the issue is making it look like there is something to hide!

I think a club not being able/willing to pay its bills on time is pretty much the definition of commercially sensitive information, no?

In any case, does it matter now beyond adding to the cash flow issues/incompetent worry.

We now know the trust has committed to taking us anything > 30 days past invoice will be communicated.

Possibly but they have recently added the statement about if not paid on time going forward they will release so i am not sure it is

The 30 days is fair enough, fans shouldn't know when the club are 3, 7, 10 days late paying a bill unless the lateness of paying something delivers a penalty, then we should know.  If it's 30 days, which is effectively missing a payment, then we should be made aware for sure.

Lets' not get obsessed with one small piece of a bigger picture, the new trust board have set out the criteria so let's monitor it moving forward.  It matters little now whether they were late in the past as long as they are currently up to date with payments.  It's clear that the organisation has been all over the place and the financials are also all over the place, the new board are trying to draw a line and say, from this point on we will hold you accountable and call you out - let's let that happen.

Edit: Not aimed at you Batch, just quoted your post for context

I listened to the pod and I appreciate the Trust board are in a difficult position, owing to the fact that there is no visible alternative to Morfuni and co.

However, the stated aim to “persuade and collaborate” will not work with this regime. We all know that so it is pointless debating it. We know how they operate now. They have zero interest in collaborating with the Trust, other than to the extent that it serves a purpose of legitimising the people that own the club - whether in name or otherwise.

I personally think it would be far more effective to take a more direct approach and vocally call out their failure to pay supplier, the JV, failure to submit proper development plans, failure to have any credible plan on the pitch. By doing so, the upshot may well be that they are cut adrift as Power did. That’s telling in itself. Be the truth tellers, publicly. In doing that, it may actually galvanise the fan base out of its slumber to be vocal against the regime, which may in turn twist their arm into pursuing a sale or being receptive to those that show an interest, if more of a light can be shone on the way they are running the club and make it thoroughly unpleasant for them to be at the club. 

The alternative is the status quo. Turn up to AB meetings. Get fobbed off. Don’t speak out. Legitimise crooks. And be right where we are this time next year, or worse.

We need a return to the spirit of when the Trust was formed, with the directness of Paul D and Andy Ratcliffe.

I'm not sure about this. There are elements within the club that this is true of, absolutely, but there are also parts of the club that clearly are trying to do good stuff on a near zero budget. I think that's what's so tricky here, "the club" is an erratic mess which obviously it *shouldn't* be with one decision maker.

They clearly are doing things that aren't directly money making - the women's team for example is clearly them trying to do the "right" thing even when it isn't commercially viable in the short term. The fan zone similarly, whilst half arsed, doesn't seem like something that Lee Power era management would ever have considered.

There are nefarious elements, there are incompetent elements and there are a few people (entirely employees at the club rather than senior management) who are doing good things in tough circumstances. Torpedoing the whole thing is a big step for the Trust.

Should they be further along the path to that point? Probably. But that's the fault of the previous two years of head in the sand ignoring red flags, rather than what this board have done in their two months. Or at least, that's my position - your mileage may well vary! I do think that what you're describing is certainly one way in which it could play out with the current board - they're just not there yet.

Interested parties are probably doing themselves a disservice not going public at the moment.

Its a rock and a hard place though.

If they break cover then it could be used by the club as a leverage tool to put the price of the club up, or start a bidding war between a couple of prospective buyers.

By “them” I mean Morfuni, Austin, and the lurkers. Not the good people who turn up, work, and want the club to be a success.

Don’t think interested parties need to go full on public but would be well served to make themselves known to the Trust at this point…

Totally appreciate you mean that, but if the Trust went on a war footing against the top brass, they'd be blackballed from being able to work with the club in any way, as in the latter stages of Power.

Yes I think thats a decent option if they wish to stay private.

Very much agree.

Probably a better option, yeah. Even if it comes with NDAs. At least The Trust can confirm there have been offers publicly at that point.

So in order to speak with FITC, the Commercial guy, and others involved in the community work, we sacrifice the objective of creating lasting change at the club?

It sounds like a great approach, if your name is Zavier or Clemente.

As mentioned in the pod, they'd have to do that some point through the JV if there was a change of representation. I guess that's 'after the fact' ?

I’ve said time & time again - some more people will wake up to goings on if they is a known viable alternative.

That part of problem with regards to ownership; as far as we know are options are Clem (and gang) or the gang (and Clem) and we can do whatever we want from chanting to sacrificing pigs on the pitch during a game but that won’t help a change of ownership if there isn’t anyone buying.

I know it was a different time (and he never actually bought the club in the end) but Bill Power was there, was visible, face was on the Adver, he was at games, he was at Trust meetings - the fanbase (even the ‘only interested in the football’ parts) knew who he was - that he existed - what he wanted.

We need an alternative (not shit Sherlock) but we need a known alternative to get behind (which again ironically is exactly what Clem did to win over people on the first place) people liked Clem because he wasn’t Power (at the time!!)

Agree with the premise but it’s sadly not how credible buyers move nowadays, at least until latter stages at the earliest. They remain in the shadows.

The problem we are facing is that any potential buyer is seeing a myriad of risks when thinking about purchasing the club.  Going public does not mitigate any of those risks and puts pressure on them to complete a deal that they are likely backing away from anyway.

Who buys a business when a court case is still hanging over who the past owner was, which in turn could have serious implications on who owns the shares as things stand?  Plus even those shares were diluted by two further interested parties and a loan deal that is at best opaque.  On top of that, the outcome of that legal effort could very well influence an FA charge, that could seriously impact the league we play in.  Basically we are asking buyers to part with cash without knowing whether they end-up owning the business properly, or what their revenue is likely to be.

I imagine these are the very things that Bathford's Accountants and Lawyers have warned about.

And I forgot to mention that there is the issue of triggering pre-emption rights in the Holding Co.

Is the ownership court case likely to happen this year?

I really struggle to fathom how the civil case between Power and Standing can have implications on the club bar penalising due to an Agent fund the club. The case is civil and not against STFC. The shares potentially at risk have since been sold. I feel the case is purely Standing trying to recoup funds from Power.

Isn't agent owning the club is an outcome (for the period in question). One says loan, the other says for shares?

Had a 2 mnute look, but can't find the edxplicit ownership rules. But they are there.

Did this get resolved, or is this the current charge awaiting court descisions?
https://www.thefa.com/news/2021/apr/07/intermediary-regulations-breaches-070421

It's not so much that the court could find "against" the club - the club isn't a party to the court case, it's Standing v Power, but that information could emerge in the course of that case that leads to the FA charging the club separately.

The club's best case scenario is probably Standing/Power settling out of court.

As in an additional charge or charges over & above the exist one on the books against the club, Power, Standing & Barry?

Always the chance of some very dirty washing being aired if it can't be settled out of court I guess.

In a way it might be better if all of the details around the "loan" do come out into the open.

Given all deals were initially verbal, any buyer would have a risk alerted to them of that previous handover of ownership possibly creating some messy future civil claims.  If Power didn't have the right to sell the other 50%, he didn't have the right to set the price, and while that may be at arms length, it still creates questions.  We also cannot know why Standing allowed the sale to occur at the time - he had an injunction that meant he could have blocked it.  There could be a side deal hanging around.

The bigger issue of course is around the FA charge that remains hovering above us - which is unlikely to be decided until the ownership situation is legally settled.

Who buys a business with so many unanswered questions.  Not to mention the potential contracts we have signed up to with "friends".  Karachi for example - nobody really knows what STFC is on the hook for.  It's in, it's out, it's shaking all over the fucking place.

It won't have implications for the shares or who owns the club, as it is Power vs Standing and neither have ownership of the club. 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd80ApZ8raQ-cExy1pOWYQwr-vgV_JziotbXs8Gcby4xN7IEg/viewform

The trust are pushing this end of season supporter survey. All supporters, not just members.

I commented a few days ago that we couldnt find any info on progress - I have been told that info on cases can be looked at on the internet . we need someone who knows about this sort of thing to look into it .  I assume the trust could actually do something and get a lawyer to find out more

Ownership, in a legal sense, no.  Ownership in a verbal backroom deal that could exist, nobody knows.  As mentioned, Standing had an injunction to prevent Power from selling, he provided the OK for Clem to purchase the business even though he continued to seek redress with Power (think they were suing each other at one point, but pretty sure it is the Standing vs Power case that remains).  If Standing believed he owned 50% of the club, why did he not seek to block a sale and ask for some money?  That is the type of question that would hang around when a potential buyer is assessing risks.

If he did/does own 50% of the club then, surely, he’s only legally entitled to 50% of the £212,500 Power sold the club for. Any side deal between the 2 has fuck all to do with the club now.

Cheers Andy, much appreciated  :)

I won't be there as i've timed a holiday very well to miss the tail of this accursed season, but TrustSTFC Board members will be at the OSC BBQ from 1.30 on Saturday.

Come along, have a chat, or share your views directly with them, they would love for you to come along and say hello!


Also - please do fill in the survey!

Survey closes tonight 9pm if you want to make your feelings known.

https://truststfc.com/2024/05/09/end-of-season-fans-survey-report/

This just in, people are not very happy

Personally, I think that's a very insightful report. Particularly with the number of people unsure about their ST and citing off-field concerns as an important factor.

There's also something of a step onto the front foot in the introductory blurb:

I’ve criticised the trust in the past & nearly stopped my membership, however, this is a very good statement, presentation put together by a voluntary group of people. It’s miles better than anything the club has put out with full time employees!! Kudos were due!

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdDFsdHplYWN6NDRpd3dsbXFucWRicXE0bXMzdDB3cmJoNXZiMjBlNiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/Zd0DYHlBmZTGaiIFRY/giphy.gif)

I do agree it's a good report by the way, no sugarcoating. No analysis exactly or suggestions of what the club needs to do, but that's over to them.

Plus they've made it abundantly clear that these results and the full report have been shared with the Chairman and CEO at the last Advisory Board meeting, so there's no question that Clem and his useless CEO know exactly what the fans are thinking at the moment.

I think it’s a good move from the Trust.

The new board have gone in all nicey, nicey & friendly.
Now rather than the Trust themselves pointing the fingers and going directly at the club (and probably getting their back up) they basically allowed the supporters to load the gun and the Trust are just the messenger (for the time being)

Whilst it gives a clear indication of what we basically already know - it doesn’t help solve these issues (not that I’m suggesting it would/should)

It doesn’t surprise me at all to hear the club attributed any criticism to a “vocal minority of social media accounts”, they’re utterly detached from the sentiment of fans and if they really were turning up to handshakes and selfies in the Legends Lounge against Morecambe then it further feeds into that narrative.

A much better statement from the Trust and kudos to them for that, much needed after the past year or so. Happy to see it clearly stated that the results have been shared with the club but I hold little faith that it will have any effect on them and we will no doubt hear some spun up excuse reasoning for it or a short 2 week charm offensive that they think will bring everyone back onside (and to be fair, some will fall for it).

Good work by the trust, kudos - now it's over to the club.  I won't hold my breath and await what the follow up move by the trust will be.

If they bother to read it.

Trust email suggests 10% of people aren't renewing their season tickets, but its actually more like 15.7% as they don't appear to exclude people who don't have season tickets from their calculations.

At a worst case scenario for the club, if everyone of the 26% of the undecided don't renew, we'll be looking at 52.9% not renewing.

(Although this is assuming that all the undecided are current season ticket holders, without it being broken down between undecided current and undecided not current, the data becomes a bit more foggy)

The most professional thing to have a club crest attached to it in quite some time. If this does not convey the message, nothing will.

What is very worrying is the club believe there was a minority on social media that was noisy - do they not realize that social media is the way of the world nowadays and why would you get 95% of people on social media with the same or similar opinion, if it was a 50/50 split then you could understand but it isn't.

Sadly it seems that Clem & Co have stuck their fingers in their ears then buried their head in the sand (just to ensure they cant hear or see anything) and decided that we have had a great season, they are doing a wonderful job and long may it continue.

Kudos to the Trust for the survey, lets hope Clem & Co read and dissect and actually realize the noisy minority on social media are representing of the fan base after all.

Sad thing is that if you walked past them now and asked what the figures were that the trust had just released they wouldn't know, they don't give a fuck what we think. They know best

We are reforming this question for next time to avoid any grey areas in the data

I agree with the sentiment, but we all know of many fans that go to games who have little or no Social Media presence, or don’t believe any of what is posted.

They will be among the 3k that will renew their ST’s regardless.

I don’t know how you get them to understand what is going on

This.

As I found out myself chatting to mates who do not use any social media before the Morecambe game.

Surely the most amazing stat is that ONLY 93% of people were dissatisfied with the first team performance, that means that 7% were satisfied with our worst season in living memory  :doh:

7% of people did not understand the question.

They are the ones that believe repeatedly shouting 'get it forward' makes a blind bit of difference to what happens on the pitch.

If we are being super nit picky (and this survey is going to be a yearly thing) I think a ‘I really don’t care / null’ option needs to be added when being asked how satisfied / dissatisfied we are with something - particularly when on the previous page we are asked what is important to us.

For example, I haven’t bought anything to eat at a Swindon game for 20 odd years (and even then it was only because the girl behind the kiosk was a school friend of my mate and under charged him every time) so i answered that, that wasn’t important to me at all - then a minute later i was asked how satisfied I was with the food that isn’t important to me….not sure I can be satisfied / dissatisfied with something I haven’t sampled for 20 years.

Similar to the women’s team progress, signings & ticket prices. Not important to me therefore my satisfied / dissatisfied opinion is null.

Yup, we've also factored that in

edit - Thanks DIV, didn't want to seem ungrateful

I found Keiran Maguires little bit early very interesting and kind of confirmed my initial thoughts that Clem is clearly being led by others with this

Credit where it's due - great work from the Trust

Perhaps they were the season ticket holders who only went against creepy.

Agree 100%. The main issue now is will we get a response to all these concerns?  Very much doubt it! If not, then whats next?