New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Posh Red]

Send your questions in advance so they can vet them.

Grow some balls and face the music

It does also say

The format of the Fans Forum will be changed slightly to the previous ones we’ve held, with fans given the opportunity to send in their questions before sitting down for the Fans Forum at the end of the month, whilst also being given the chance to ask any question that may arise on the evening as well.

Will be interesting to see if there’s enough time for those questions

[Bob's Orange]

Send your questions in advance so they can vet them.

Grow some balls and face the music

Nonsensical questions about whether a Tom Broadbent statue is warranted,  or what Clem's favourite takeaway is will be on the questions agenda.

[Hyabb17]

It does also say

The format of the Fans Forum will be changed slightly to the previous ones we’ve held, with fans given the opportunity to send in their questions before sitting down for the Fans Forum at the end of the month, whilst also being given the chance to ask any question that may arise on the evening as well.

Will be interesting to see if there’s enough time for those questions

45 mins. Waffle long enough & that’s not many questions

[Nemo]

As much as it might be fun to submit questions along the lines of 'why should we believe anything you say when you've admitted lying to us repeatedly?' it probably would be more effective to try and get commitments on some key issues with questions that aren't outwardly angry and aggressive. Clem, I think more than any owner we've had apart from maybe Jed, wants people to like him and will say what he thinks people want to hear. If those questions are well aimed, you might get some actually useful commitments.

[STFC_Manc]

Outside of the Ground Development as a wider project, should the Trust be providing resources and effort to the building and installation of a Don Rogers Statue?  i don't think so.  If it were part of a grand scheme to redevelop the ground, then yes, but right now it is not, it is was started separate to that vehicle.

Should Trust STFC be covering the costs of an OAP Xmas dinner?  No.  It's job is to be an independent fans representation vehicle.  Good cause, wrong people.

Should the Trust be exerting effort setting up and running an STFC Museum with tours of the CG?  Not likely.  Again, volunteer support for such a thing may well be a good idea, but the club should be responsible for owning and delivering such items.  Where this works well, it is run by the club and generates Revenue.

In my view, the Trust have got involved in too many items that should be run by either the club, the Official Supporters Club or the sole responsibility of the CG Joint Venture (yes, I know the Trust gives two people towards that Board, but I'd like it ring fenced within that Organisation, not part of general Trust activity).

The people who offer written support of the Trust on here often make the point it's run by volunteers, and that we shouldn't expect the world as a result.  I agree - focus.

Your point about giving feedback to the club on behalf of the fans, I'd put that within the goal of seeking better representation (up to full ownership).  A good objective would be to have a much more official way of doing this, rather than tea and biscuits once a month.  This should be much more strategic and part of having a rep on the Board (which I am not assuming any owner would just give freely - work on a plan to gain sufficient investment to force their hands though).

While I can understand your view to a certain degree, the board can have up to 12 members and recently they have had a full quota. With that many people they all can't be involved in the same thing?

[doversparkred]

Your point about giving feedback to the club on behalf of the fans, I'd put that within the goal of seeking better representation (up to full ownership).  A good objective would be to have a much more official way of doing this, rather than tea and biscuits once a month.  This should be much more strategic and part of having a rep on the Board (which I am not assuming any owner would just give freely - work on a plan to gain sufficient investment to force their hands though).

My local team Bath City is fan-owned (technically the supporters society) and has a Community Director on the board plus a supporter liaison officer who attends board meetings, the minutes of which are all published on the club website. This often results in working groups staffed by club and fan reps being set up to work on a specific project, such as matchday experience, fundraisers, tidying up the ground and so on.

Clearly a EFL club is a different proposition to NL South, but it's only actually two leagues apart and I bet some NLS clubs have better (ie less bad) balance sheets!

[tans]

My local team Bath City is fan-owned (technically the supporters society) and has a Community Director on the board plus a supporter liaison officer who attends board meetings, the minutes of which are all published on the club website. This often results in working groups staffed by club and fan reps being set up to work on a specific project, such as matchday experience, fundraisers, tidying up the ground and so on.

Clearly a EFL club is a different proposition to NL South, but it's only actually two leagues apart and I bet some NLS clubs have better (ie less bad) balance sheets!

Same at Banbury United who i volunteer for

[joeydubya]

Representing the fans is fine. Too often, the Trust has been used to make excuses on the club's behalf and launder their reputation - in the most egregious examples, I feel it has been used to manufacture consent for matters such as the Man City ticket increases or the short lived blanket ban on under 16s where it was revealed on the OSC that the club hadn't fixed the CCTV in the Town End, so were just speculating that they were responsible with no evidence. As relations with the club have deteriorated, the insistence on non-anonymised names when people have asking about the validity of people with questionable backgrounds, or indeed one vice chair going on a witchhunt to 'out' anonymous social media accounts is equally bizarre and troubling - the SN1 Stazi.

[reeves4england]

I don't have a problem with questions being submitted in advance - some questions are genuinely difficult to answer and need a thorough look through the relevant figures, policies and communications before giving an accurate/helpful/informative answer. They key thing will be whether questions are vetted, and whether time is indeed allowed for 'live' follow up questions as promised.

Agree to an extent on the need for the Trust to focus its resources - that will be a discussion for the new board. Perhaps some of the current initiatives could be handed over to the club in time, with revenues from a museum being designated towards a specific area of expenditure such as stadium maintenance or matchday facilities. (The counter argument being that this might simply enable other funds to be channelled into pockets - an issue which might have been clarified by a proper forensic analysis of the ledger).

[Batch]

I don't have a problem with questions being submitted in advance

it's not like you can't submit on the day, though scheduling may prove tricky if there is a number of pre-canned.

[Bennett]

While I can understand your view to a certain degree, the board can have up to 12 members and recently they have had a full quota. With that many people they all can't be involved in the same thing?

In my opinion - Personally they can, but the Trust should not be running things that the club should be.
I welcome the reset that looks as if it's happening, the trust needs a new mission and needs a coherent strategy to deal with the ground, as Rob has outlined.
IMO a changing of the guard isn't going to work, creating something to be held up against is the only way the trust can actually win back support

[Berniman]

I had a quick look at Twitter this morning, and in my Twitter echo chamber I noticed a few tweets and replies from people suggesting that the outgoing Trust board has been hounded out by the agressive fanbase, obviously no mention of the agressive manner on Twitter of at least one of the outgoing board members.

Put the stupid incident at the ground with Steve Myton's family to one side (which was unacceptable) but i think it is a push to say that questioning the actions (or inactions) of the Trust and holding them to account in the same way that they should be holding the club to account is hounding them out.  Members do pay money to the Trust which should get them a voice, and if they feel that the voice isn't be listened to then they have a right to call that out. Criticism shouldn't be mistaken as agression, which it often is.

I just thought it was weird that all of a sudden I saw a lot of tweets delivering a similar rhetoric along the same lines of our CEO, i.e. it's all the fans fault.  Granted these tweeters could be the same people that are full on pro Clem on the facebook page and will go after anyone that dares to criticise the club or anyone associated with it and defend the club to the hilt.  Whether that rhetoric is by design or not, who knows, but will be interesting to see if that continues.

[Batch]

I just thought it was weird that all of a sudden I saw a lot of tweets delivering a similar rhetoric along the same lines of our CEO, i.e. it's all the fans fault.  Granted these tweeters could be the same people that are full on pro Clem on the facebook page and will go after anyone that dares to criticise the club or anyone associated with it and defend the club to the hilt.  Whether that rhetoric is by design or not, who knows, but will be interesting to see if that continues.

Fair question. Not really considered it being a "spread my word minions" scenario - not that you are saying it is.

I've always seen it as what you said, a set of fans that believe and accept the club line without question (or with but reaching the conclusion its correct). Same thing happened when Power went on BBC Wilts - ya known shaaaaun.

[STFC_Manc]

I don't have a problem with questions being submitted in advance - some questions are genuinely difficult to answer and need a thorough look through the relevant figures, policies and communications before giving an accurate/helpful/informative answer. They key thing will be whether questions are vetted, and whether time is indeed allowed for 'live' follow up questions as promised.

Agree to an extent on the need for the Trust to focus its resources - that will be a discussion for the new board. Perhaps some of the current initiatives could be handed over to the club in time, with revenues from a museum being designated towards a specific area of expenditure such as stadium maintenance or matchday facilities. (The counter argument being that this might simply enable other funds to be channelled into pockets - an issue which might have been clarified by a proper forensic analysis of the ledger).

The museum is a charity in its own right with trustees and isn't run by the Trust, the trust provides updates as a good way of communicating to fans.

[reeves4england]

The museum is a charity in its own right with trustees and isn't run by the Trust, the trust provides updates as a good way of communicating to fans.

Ah, thanks. My mistake.