an open note to the trust.....

[Fred Elliot]

I wasn't going to go drinking on monday and now I am. Go trust meetings!!!!

Are you coming El Presidente ?

[flammableBen]

I may be.

I always imagine trust meetings to be held secretly in smokey back rooms where nobody uses their real names.

I reckon I might be dissapointed.

[Bennett]

it was at the sun inn recently...the only dodgey thing was that kid with no neck being voted onto the board

[arthurhorsfield]

STFcere...

These are both valid and important points you make and I certainly support them.

As you know I have worked closely with the Trust Board (as well as many other unaffiliated or independent fans) over the past few months to progress the Fans Consortium project.

I can say that any reservations I had about the Trust have long since disappeared (and like you I was a tad sceptical) as the project has developed.

Whilst communication and membership benefits can always be improved (it sounds like you could certainly help here) what cannot be improved (in my opinion) is the basic honesty of these fans and their genuine desire to see STFC succeed.  The people who give of their time and effort are true fans who care about the club, travel to most games home and away and generally support the team despite everything.

In addition they are people whose motivation is entirely philanthropic in that they expect nothing in return, other than the right to have a say in how their club is run.  I also know that they accept that with representation comes responsibility and accountability, and I am convinced that the Trust Board is both democratic and open in its dealing with fans and the club.

The reason that Bill Power and Phil Emmel are backing the Consortium is precisely because they believe absolutely in the concept of a 'fan based' club i.e. one where the club can only be successful if the fans are involved, connected and part of the project.

I can only tell you what I have found, and the fact that whenever we have been tested as a group the simple application of truth and openness as a guiding principle has stood us in good stead.

The coming weeks will sorely test the patience and fortitude of all Swindon fans and I expect things to get worse before they get better. The more fans who get involved the better and as you have demonstrated there is plenty of room for all shades of opinion.

Do please join us and contribute your obvious common sense and intelligence

[Summerof69]

If you're coming to the Brizzle Rovers game STFCere, pop into the Trust office prior to the game (we'll be open from around 1.30 depending on who opens up), and hopefully we'll answer some of your questions.

[millom red]

Who administers the web site Fred?

Millom

[pauld]

sorry, i live far from swindon so coming along isnt really possible. i challenge you to bolster the website, give me more information, let me know what difference the trust can make, etc etc. remember that the website is for me and like many others the only source of information on the trust, and at the moment its not really upto much. i hope this critcism is constructive rather than damming!

Fair enough, what is the information you feel is missing? There's a load of info on the Trust in the menu under the heading "About the Trust" and likewise there's a fair bit of info (hopefully about to be filled out a bit more) about the Fans' Consortium under the section cunningly titled "Fans' Consortium". Not having a pop, but in all seriousness what information is it you feel we're not providing?

[pauld]

soapy tit wank fair point about the 'hardcore' support.   , i ment average attendance!

And you included away fans in that! A more accurate figure for "bedrock" support would likely be about 4500, so about 17% of that or over 25% of season ticket holders (assuming a s/t figure of 2500-3000, which would be wildly optimistic!).

But your point still stands - looked at as 760 out of 4500, it's very much a minority, albeit a significant one. But that's actually incredibly high for actual signed-up members - any organisation will always have a far smaller number of members than supporters. To put it into another context, the two main political parties have membership of about 300,000 out of 60m people (about 0.5%), yet clearly command far higher levels of support than that. In that context, having 17% of the "constituency" in question is actually substantial. Even if we only say for every actual signed-up Trust member there's another two fans who agree with them (which would be extremely low - it's usually 1:5 ratio), it's a huge base of support. And to have gone from under 200 members a couple of months ago to nearly 800 now I think shows fans are voting with their feet as to what they think.

i just think their role in any potential takeover will be minimal.

If you mean financially, yes you're probably right. If you mean in terms of bringing it about, I don't think I'd be blowing our own trumpet too much to say we've been crucial in getting things to the stage they have reached so far - read Mike W's post above if you doubt that. If you mean our role once the consortium has been successful, a key part of the Consortium's stated aims is to have an elected supporter director on the board and far greater fan involvement in the running of the club from top to bottom - as one of the main fans' groups, I think the Trust is likely to be heavily involved in this.  

Hopefully that answers some of your points - if there's bits that still aren't clear, come back and I (and I'm sure others) will try and answer them.

[pauld]

Who administers the web site Fred?

Millom

Andrew Hounsell. Does a bloody good job IMO

[STFCere]

thanks for your replies paul, you make some good points.

3 suggestions:

1. offer more than two options for membership. £100 is way too pricey, and one years membership is pretty pointless. surely from the trusts point of view it would be better to have a solid core of members instead of a high turnover rate at the end of the year due to 1 year memberships running out and the likelihood that more than half wont renew?

why not offer 1,2,3,4,5 years memberships and the lifetime. would offer much greater flexbility, and the chance to raise more cash. i would be tempted to go for the 3 year deal at say £20?

2. update the cash received more frequently. giving more accurate figures should entice more people to join. set targets, and display them on the website.

3. display current numbers of supporters on the website too, again i think this would encourage others to join

keep up the good work, lets hope this is all worth in the end!

[STFCere]

3 - members not supporters obviously!

[STFCere]

oh paul, did you also get the suggestion for past players earlier in the thread? to get someone like hoddle behind it and to speak in the media would be a great coup

[Piemonte]

I support the idea of getting former players to support the idea, I 'd rather it wasnt a total dickhead like hoddle though :x

[Reg Smeeton]

I support the idea of getting former players to support the idea, I 'd rather it wasnt a total dickhead like hoddle though :x

 I'm not sure you'd get much of response from former players.....who are notoriously apolitical.  After all it was just their job, whereas for us it is our passion.....how many of us would be too bothered about what went on at a former employee?

[millom red]

Stfcere some good suggestions there mate.
The first one about high turnover of members is a good one and is something i would imagine will be adressed by the trust when things are not so chaotic ie trying to deal with the immediate problem of getting shot of the Newbury brigade.
The basic fans rep principle in my opinion will mean that the membership numbers will grow(short term members or long term) as the whole idea is based on the said rep being democratically elected by members,(someone correct me if im wrong on this).

Pauld i agree mr hounsell does a cracking job, was just wondering who you would need to approach if you had something of value to contribute to the site.

Cheers,

Millom