| Vote of no confidence thread. 18:21 - Dec 15 with 25469 views | E20Jack |
Not a member but will happily join again if this was to get off the ground.
Any members have any ideas how to do this?
Looks like the only way of stopping this deal now. I have asked several times what are the benefits of this deal, it cannot be continuing to have a voice as conceding drag rights will probably mean the Trust survives as an organisation for a shorter period than if it was to go legal. They are not long term owners.
...those who recommended the deal still have not answered.
Swans Trust,
12 Dynevor Avenue,
Neath,
SA10 7AG
I, the undersigned member, believe the current committee no longer represents the wishes of this organisation's members. I would like to register a vote of no confidence and ask you to call and extraordinary meeting of all Trust members so that we can be heard. We would like to table a motion that the following committee members should stand down and call an election at the earliest opportunity.
Alan Lewis
Stuart McDonald
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
Cath Dyer
Viv Williams
Sian Davies
Yours,
................................
** any Trust members for the deal I have missed out feel free to add or any I have included that are against it then again feel free to omit. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 20:43]
|  |
| |  |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:26 - Dec 16 with 1487 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:21 - Dec 16 by Darran |
People are clearly laughing at you Dim Dims. Go listen to Hanson and bang your supermodel girlfriend or summin instead. |
Aye, like you were laughing at the Res who was correct at every juncture making you look a right idiot. You can call me every name under the sun and make whatever incoherent noise you want, but people still think you are a kn*b who puts a desire to troll on the internet before the club he claims to support.
Thems the facts.
Use my letter wisely that I so kindly did on your behalf. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 10:26]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:26 - Dec 16 with 1486 views | monmouth |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 08:35 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
I'm staying out of this, for obvious reasons, however I have to say the following.
Motions of no confidence, forcing the existing board out is all well and good. Perfectly achievable I would even go so far as to suggest. However, what is your plan then?
What do you want to happen, beyond a broad "stop the deal" concept? Is it legal action, with all that entails, or strengthen your presence and stake in the club?
Who is going to stand for the new board? What are their goals and objectives? Who will be the new Chairman and SD?
I ask these questions, because I care deeply about the Trust and the role it should have (although I share many frustrations about the role it does have, frustrations not all of the Trust's making). I see a lot of destruction planned, but precious little construction.
What is the plan? What is the goal? Why is it better than now? Why is it better than the current direction?
I'm being genuine here, as I'm open to being convinced one way or the other. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the problem I have is nobody is presenting a compelling alternative, beyond merely abolishing the current model. That's fine for what it is, but it's not very helpful beyond that initial act. There needs to be a plan. |
Sorry Ux, I normally more or less agree with you and would like to see you on any future Board, but the cling on to nurse for fear of something worse....or fear of nothing....argument has been rolled out to support the same jockeys on the horse too often now.
The horse is being ridden towards an inch of its life in my view and some - not all - new jockeys are required. They will come forward in the hour of need, I have no doubt about that. I am an old nag myself, but if it were a case of a temporary fix, I would stand, and I'm sure so would many others. Hell we have more than we need already with the 15 co-optees, plus others that have been engaged by the perceived amateur behaviour of the current bunch.
As for SD, sorry but Stuart has been invisible anyway, much to my disappointment, given that I accept fully that he's a 'really good guy', and I'm sure I would like him personally. Someone like Lisa that actually knows her way around a real boardroom and non-executive experience would be light years better. I would think that anyone without blinkers can see that.
We need to bring it down to build it up. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:02]
|  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:29 - Dec 16 with 1472 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:26 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
Sorry Ux, I normally more or less agree with you and would like to see you on any future Board, but the cling on to nurse for fear of something worse....or fear of nothing....argument has been rolled out to support the same jockeys on the horse too often now.
The horse is being ridden towards an inch of its life in my view and some - not all - new jockeys are required. They will come forward in the hour of need, I have no doubt about that. I am an old nag myself, but if it were a case of a temporary fix, I would stand, and I'm sure so would many others. Hell we have more than we need already with the 15 co-optees, plus others that have been engaged by the perceived amateur behaviour of the current bunch.
As for SD, sorry but Stuart has been invisible anyway, much to my disappointment, given that I accept fully that he's a 'really good guy', and I'm sure I would like him personally. Someone like Lisa that actually knows her way around a real boardroom and non-executive experience would be light years better. I would think that anyone without blinkers can see that.
We need to bring it down to build it up. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:02]
|
Correct. The succession plan is the easy bit in all this.
First and foremost, this deal needs stopping. Once it is signed everything becomes irrelevant including the Trust themselves.
The question should be asked as to what the succession plan after signing the deal is from a Trusts perspective. Its bonkers. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 10:31]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:40 - Dec 16 with 1444 views | ItchySphincter |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 09:44 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Get someone else to do what? You do realise I was the one that constructed this template yes?
If you like I will also print it off and send it so my workload exceeds that of everyone else, but it will of course be a spoiled request.
Happy? Or are you happier being in the snide corner? If you have no imput into this then clear off. Cheers. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 10:16]
|
Whatever Trevor.
I suggested the template idea weeks ago so thanks for developing my idea.
As for the 'snide' corner - I put my money where my mouth is and use my vote. Shame others just want to come on here and grandstand instead of at least attempting to make a little bit of difference.
You have no self awareness. Good for you. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:41 - Dec 16 with 1438 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:40 - Dec 16 by ItchySphincter |
Whatever Trevor.
I suggested the template idea weeks ago so thanks for developing my idea.
As for the 'snide' corner - I put my money where my mouth is and use my vote. Shame others just want to come on here and grandstand instead of at least attempting to make a little bit of difference.
You have no self awareness. Good for you. |
Ah great, point me to where this letter of yours is and we can go with whatever version is best.
...or did you just "suggest" it for someone else to do? | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:41 - Dec 16 with 1439 views | whoflungdung |
E20.
I pose a straight question.
If the deal goes ahead,what is your opinion as to how it will impact on the club
Would you accept that you do not have a definitive prognosis as to what will unfold [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 10:42]
|  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:45 - Dec 16 with 1421 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:41 - Dec 16 by whoflungdung |
E20.
I pose a straight question.
If the deal goes ahead,what is your opinion as to how it will impact on the club
Would you accept that you do not have a definitive prognosis as to what will unfold [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 10:42]
|
For me it is a case of looking at most likely scenarios. We can all say, yeah but we may sign the deal, stay up, turn into a champions league club and be mega rich... Can't we.
But if we are being realistic. For me it means the organisation ceases to exist in all but name. It will have maybe £6m-7m in the bank when all is said and done. No shares to its name and either being used to pay off debts racked up by whatever owners have done it or it gets given to some local charities. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:54 - Dec 16 with 1402 views | whoflungdung |
Thanks for that
Fair comment
We don't KNOW which was the case when the club was bought by Kaplan Levein .
People had doubts and some like T2C were proven correct .To his credit, he doesn't gorge himself over being proven so.
Why the likes of Darran feel it necessary to go back and snipe at those (me) who liked the idea of being bought out from cretin like Jenkins ,is not my problem . It's where we are now that matters.
And it's not a good place
Frankly, I hope we are bought by someone who ,somehow, wants to bring us back.
Terry Matthews would be nice | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:58 - Dec 16 with 1397 views | chad |
I completely understand the very strong reasons why many of us did not renew or join, but to achieve anything at this critical point, it is vital to have as many as possible members who share these strong concerns. That is just a pragmatic fact in the current situation (where members, not necessarily supporters are allowed to hold sway) if we want to take back control of the Trust and the important resources it controls.
That is no criticism at all to those who do not see it as a worthwhile or palatable option given all that has gone before. That may well be the most principled action. We all have our own personal decisions to make and those may be disagreed with by each other but should be respected
So please let us move away from that and concentrate on what matters
I think thanks should go to E20 for providing a focus for further action in this thread and for drafting the letter as is was a very constructive and helpful thing to do.
Let us also remember if we want a united membership and the best chance of a successful outcome that there are many outside this website keen to take action, who should be involved. |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:04 - Dec 16 with 1376 views | Darran |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:58 - Dec 16 by chad |
I completely understand the very strong reasons why many of us did not renew or join, but to achieve anything at this critical point, it is vital to have as many as possible members who share these strong concerns. That is just a pragmatic fact in the current situation (where members, not necessarily supporters are allowed to hold sway) if we want to take back control of the Trust and the important resources it controls.
That is no criticism at all to those who do not see it as a worthwhile or palatable option given all that has gone before. That may well be the most principled action. We all have our own personal decisions to make and those may be disagreed with by each other but should be respected
So please let us move away from that and concentrate on what matters
I think thanks should go to E20 for providing a focus for further action in this thread and for drafting the letter as is was a very constructive and helpful thing to do.
Let us also remember if we want a united membership and the best chance of a successful outcome that there are many outside this website keen to take action, who should be involved. |
Outstanding first paragraph Mrs chad.
The membership runs out on July 31st and these non-members need never part with £10 ever again if things don’t go the right way. You may only need to be a member for just over 7 months and never ever again. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:08 - Dec 16 with 1367 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:58 - Dec 16 by chad |
I completely understand the very strong reasons why many of us did not renew or join, but to achieve anything at this critical point, it is vital to have as many as possible members who share these strong concerns. That is just a pragmatic fact in the current situation (where members, not necessarily supporters are allowed to hold sway) if we want to take back control of the Trust and the important resources it controls.
That is no criticism at all to those who do not see it as a worthwhile or palatable option given all that has gone before. That may well be the most principled action. We all have our own personal decisions to make and those may be disagreed with by each other but should be respected
So please let us move away from that and concentrate on what matters
I think thanks should go to E20 for providing a focus for further action in this thread and for drafting the letter as is was a very constructive and helpful thing to do.
Let us also remember if we want a united membership and the best chance of a successful outcome that there are many outside this website keen to take action, who should be involved. |
Thanks Chad.
If we can get 119 people on here to all say they are behind this I will happily become the 120th. So far it looks to be about 4, I have no inclination to join a failing organisation without the desire to change. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:09 - Dec 16 with 1366 views | monmouth |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:04 - Dec 16 by Darran |
Outstanding first paragraph Mrs chad.
The membership runs out on July 31st and these non-members need never part with £10 ever again if things don’t go the right way. You may only need to be a member for just over 7 months and never ever again. |
It was this point, plus the election of ECB and involvement of Lisa that made my own mind up. Plus the fact that if anyone has ever been a member, or cares about the cherished old horse, then to not be a member now, when the organisation is becoming irrelevant, maybe teetering on the verge of extinction, one way or the other, seems to me at best irrational, at worst irresponsible. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:11]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:10 - Dec 16 with 1360 views | chad |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 08:35 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
I'm staying out of this, for obvious reasons, however I have to say the following.
Motions of no confidence, forcing the existing board out is all well and good. Perfectly achievable I would even go so far as to suggest. However, what is your plan then?
What do you want to happen, beyond a broad "stop the deal" concept? Is it legal action, with all that entails, or strengthen your presence and stake in the club?
Who is going to stand for the new board? What are their goals and objectives? Who will be the new Chairman and SD?
I ask these questions, because I care deeply about the Trust and the role it should have (although I share many frustrations about the role it does have, frustrations not all of the Trust's making). I see a lot of destruction planned, but precious little construction.
What is the plan? What is the goal? Why is it better than now? Why is it better than the current direction?
I'm being genuine here, as I'm open to being convinced one way or the other. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the problem I have is nobody is presenting a compelling alternative, beyond merely abolishing the current model. That's fine for what it is, but it's not very helpful beyond that initial act. There needs to be a plan. |
Not exactly staying out of it with your quell the baying mob speech though are you Ux ;)
The prime objective of the Trust is clear and ongoing.
The tail wagging the dog comment loudly speaks of a Trust Board become pompous and bloated with their own power and their own opinions being paramount. Forgetting they are merely servants of the members.
Sometimes a tooth becomes so bad and stubbornly refuses to respond to treatment, that it needs to be extracted for the health of the organism it resides in
We stand at the brink at one of the most momentous decisions in the history of the Trust — and the Board failed to provide a balanced viewpoint for the members to make a decision on.
Regardless of any recommendation the Board made (however poor and ill-informed many of us may see that). A balanced viewpoint would present the arguments from all sides, as asked for long ago. (Not people who are clearly on one side weakly represent the other side’s argument — whilst strongly pushing their own). For the deal then to be rammed home at meetings and in media using misrepresentation and attempting to discredit sound and informed information and advice speaks of a Trust Board who in the words of the mighty monny would rather have sex with a bacon slicer than take legal action.
Let us take the saying, legal action is the last resort. This means that both parties should make serious efforts to try and settle the dispute before lodging proceedings and is standard advice
It does not mean you do not have a strong case nor should accept for e.g. 5 million when you are owed over 21 million, let alone sign away all your rights in order to get the 5 million.
The fact is legal action is the last resort after making a serious attempt to obtain a satisfactory settlement (say 20 million plus other ongoing benefits — depending on the strength of your case and our case was strong).
The actual last resort is to accept a very poor deal that hands over control of what happens to Trust shares to people who have excluded us, lied on tape and repeatedly shown bad faith.
To imply Counsels standard advice to try and settle first means accepting any deal regardless of how bad, and if we don’t we are ignoring Counsels advice, is wholly disingenuous
You say you are open on this — you also said similar things on taking the deal but your repeated posts were generally serving ramming it home. Didn’t you even invent a new slam dunk case category to try and lessen the fact that Counsel said we had a strong case.
Its ok Ux we are all blinded to some extent by our own views — that becomes a problem when we are unprepared to actually listen and digest those of others — or accept others have valid points. When we convince ourselves we are totally balanced but always know best.
A call for a vote of no confidence in the Board is indeed a last resort but we are on the brink of the clock striking midnight and it must be a resort we are willing to take when all others fail to cure. | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:13 - Dec 16 with 1346 views | Darran |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:09 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
It was this point, plus the election of ECB and involvement of Lisa that made my own mind up. Plus the fact that if anyone has ever been a member, or cares about the cherished old horse, then to not be a member now, when the organisation is becoming irrelevant, maybe teetering on the verge of extinction, one way or the other, seems to me at best irrational, at worst irresponsible. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:11]
|
Well said. ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘🻠| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:16 - Dec 16 with 1336 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 22:57 - Dec 15 by chad |
Yep Shaky mentioned this a while back and did suggest that the numbers criteria to get things carried was less onerous at the AGM - hope I haven't misquoted
But did also say the timescales were tight for the notice required so would need to check this out - contained in the rules on the website |
Can you please explain what would be the quickest way to suspend any negotiations or actions regarding the deal as I do not really understand what we need to do.
If we get 10% to sign a letter and deliver it, does that simply call a meeting? That doesn't help.
What do we need to do to actually suspend the deal? How many need to stand up at such a meeting for the deal to have to be suspended?
If 10% sign a letter which also states they want the deal to be suspended, is that enough to suspend it?
This has turned into a thread full or arguments which is helping no one. We need someone to clarify in a simple manner that all can understand what it is we need to do exactly to suspend the deal. If you could do this for me I would appreciate it. Or Shaky, or exhmrc, Lisa or whoever appears to know more about these sort of proceedings. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:17 - Dec 16 with 1336 views | chad |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:04 - Dec 16 by Darran |
Outstanding first paragraph Mrs chad.
The membership runs out on July 31st and these non-members need never part with £10 ever again if things don’t go the right way. You may only need to be a member for just over 7 months and never ever again. |
Ha it was Miss Chad (for short anyway)
Mrs Chad was my mother but thanks for reminding me of a lovely feisty lady who hated injustice | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:18 - Dec 16 with 1333 views | E20Jack |
Right.
Someone is better placed than me to answer this.
Can I print out 1 letter and in petition form (maybe an online petition print off) add all the names of the members who want to be involved, including a copy of online petition?
If so I will do it and get it sent recorded delivery by Monday.
Just need people to PM me the names.
We also need to agree on final wording of the letter as Shaky raised some fair points. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:20]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:21 - Dec 16 with 1313 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:18 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Right.
Someone is better placed than me to answer this.
Can I print out 1 letter and in petition form (maybe an online petition print off) add all the names of the members who want to be involved, including a copy of online petition?
If so I will do it and get it sent recorded delivery by Monday.
Just need people to PM me the names.
We also need to agree on final wording of the letter as Shaky raised some fair points. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:20]
|
I was thinking upload it to a site like Dropbox where people can download the letter themselves, print it off, sign it and then scan/email or send it to an address we agree on. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:24 - Dec 16 with 1306 views | Uxbridge |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 10:26 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
Sorry Ux, I normally more or less agree with you and would like to see you on any future Board, but the cling on to nurse for fear of something worse....or fear of nothing....argument has been rolled out to support the same jockeys on the horse too often now.
The horse is being ridden towards an inch of its life in my view and some - not all - new jockeys are required. They will come forward in the hour of need, I have no doubt about that. I am an old nag myself, but if it were a case of a temporary fix, I would stand, and I'm sure so would many others. Hell we have more than we need already with the 15 co-optees, plus others that have been engaged by the perceived amateur behaviour of the current bunch.
As for SD, sorry but Stuart has been invisible anyway, much to my disappointment, given that I accept fully that he's a 'really good guy', and I'm sure I would like him personally. Someone like Lisa that actually knows her way around a real boardroom and non-executive experience would be light years better. I would think that anyone without blinkers can see that.
We need to bring it down to build it up. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:02]
|
Thing is that's really not my position at all. My position is that the case for the alternative course of action needs to be made, not simply saying the current course is wrong, because largely that's coming from the people who were saying it in the summer anyway.
The argument needs to be different IMO.
The members voted a course of action in the summer. Priority #1 is arguing what has changed since then. Unless you can do that, the argument to annul the vote is weak, on any level.
Of an equal priority is arguing what the better alternative is. Also need agreement on what the better alternative is.. I've seen competing arguments on here regarding what the better option is in the future, with arguments flipping between the importance of retaining the stake verses the legal approach.
Importantly here, the strengths of the alternative approaches need to be laid out, and the weaknesses acknowledged. Why is it in everyone's interests for the Trust to go to court to pursue its case. What happens if a case is won or lost. How does the Trust benefit. What are the risks involved, and how are they mitigated. What is the impact to the club, and what happens on the pitch.
Then you come to the how you do it. A vote of no confidence could be won, no doubt about that. However my concern is the impact of that. Unless there is a coherent plan ready to implement, and a group of people ready to implement that plan the Trust is paralysed and in a worst position than if it proceeded with this deal. Hopes that people will step up, or hopes of a better resolution I'm afraid don't cut if for me. Things can always get worse.
There's a lot I'm unhappy about at the moment. Clearly there are inherent issues with the club that need addressing and the inactivity of the Trust in publicly commenting and rallying the troops makes me question everything. If we can't do that, then what is the point anyway? But merely stopping the existing course of action by any means necessary doesn't cut it for me. A better way needs to be outlined. That's the weakness I'm seeing at the moment. If that isn't addressed, then I can I only see things getting worse if the nuclear button (from a Trust board perspective) is pressed. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:35 - Dec 16 with 1277 views | airedale |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 21:50 - Dec 15 by Bobby_Fischer |
Perhaps print your name above/below the signature?
Can't tell whether this is a serious post? |
Yes, serious post. If you give people a template there's a good chance they will use it as it is in good faith. However when the recipients get it, they won't necessarily have a clue who its from. Say its signed by John Smith, how will they know who he is? So you need to put further information on there so that they can refer to their [membership] database and confirm that the letter is from a valid source. To complicate things even more, if its from John Smith at 47 Acacia Avenue, how will they know whether its John Smith senior [father] or John Smith junior [son] or even John Smith the lodger? Membership numbers might help, but who's to say that the letter hasn't been forged?
#normalisation [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:37]
|  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:37 - Dec 16 with 1268 views | monmouth |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:24 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
Thing is that's really not my position at all. My position is that the case for the alternative course of action needs to be made, not simply saying the current course is wrong, because largely that's coming from the people who were saying it in the summer anyway.
The argument needs to be different IMO.
The members voted a course of action in the summer. Priority #1 is arguing what has changed since then. Unless you can do that, the argument to annul the vote is weak, on any level.
Of an equal priority is arguing what the better alternative is. Also need agreement on what the better alternative is.. I've seen competing arguments on here regarding what the better option is in the future, with arguments flipping between the importance of retaining the stake verses the legal approach.
Importantly here, the strengths of the alternative approaches need to be laid out, and the weaknesses acknowledged. Why is it in everyone's interests for the Trust to go to court to pursue its case. What happens if a case is won or lost. How does the Trust benefit. What are the risks involved, and how are they mitigated. What is the impact to the club, and what happens on the pitch.
Then you come to the how you do it. A vote of no confidence could be won, no doubt about that. However my concern is the impact of that. Unless there is a coherent plan ready to implement, and a group of people ready to implement that plan the Trust is paralysed and in a worst position than if it proceeded with this deal. Hopes that people will step up, or hopes of a better resolution I'm afraid don't cut if for me. Things can always get worse.
There's a lot I'm unhappy about at the moment. Clearly there are inherent issues with the club that need addressing and the inactivity of the Trust in publicly commenting and rallying the troops makes me question everything. If we can't do that, then what is the point anyway? But merely stopping the existing course of action by any means necessary doesn't cut it for me. A better way needs to be outlined. That's the weakness I'm seeing at the moment. If that isn't addressed, then I can I only see things getting worse if the nuclear button (from a Trust board perspective) is pressed. |
:) Can I have a think while I'm out running?
I'll try and solve the middle east issue whilst I'm on mile three too.
The first imperative for me is to get better, more capable professional people running the Trust, more geared towards the current circumstances. Present company always excepted. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:37 - Dec 16 with 1268 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:24 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
Thing is that's really not my position at all. My position is that the case for the alternative course of action needs to be made, not simply saying the current course is wrong, because largely that's coming from the people who were saying it in the summer anyway.
The argument needs to be different IMO.
The members voted a course of action in the summer. Priority #1 is arguing what has changed since then. Unless you can do that, the argument to annul the vote is weak, on any level.
Of an equal priority is arguing what the better alternative is. Also need agreement on what the better alternative is.. I've seen competing arguments on here regarding what the better option is in the future, with arguments flipping between the importance of retaining the stake verses the legal approach.
Importantly here, the strengths of the alternative approaches need to be laid out, and the weaknesses acknowledged. Why is it in everyone's interests for the Trust to go to court to pursue its case. What happens if a case is won or lost. How does the Trust benefit. What are the risks involved, and how are they mitigated. What is the impact to the club, and what happens on the pitch.
Then you come to the how you do it. A vote of no confidence could be won, no doubt about that. However my concern is the impact of that. Unless there is a coherent plan ready to implement, and a group of people ready to implement that plan the Trust is paralysed and in a worst position than if it proceeded with this deal. Hopes that people will step up, or hopes of a better resolution I'm afraid don't cut if for me. Things can always get worse.
There's a lot I'm unhappy about at the moment. Clearly there are inherent issues with the club that need addressing and the inactivity of the Trust in publicly commenting and rallying the troops makes me question everything. If we can't do that, then what is the point anyway? But merely stopping the existing course of action by any means necessary doesn't cut it for me. A better way needs to be outlined. That's the weakness I'm seeing at the moment. If that isn't addressed, then I can I only see things getting worse if the nuclear button (from a Trust board perspective) is pressed. |
The "new" argument can be anything you like. Gagging rights were not listed in the proposals, they have shown to be unworkable due to an attempt to renegotiate as agreed, they stated the deal would be the same as the provious board but was not.
The members voted for action due to a one sided drive for it. It was shocking in its set up and execution. You can point to independant scrutineers but there was clearly an awful lot of leeway before they stepped in and it was used in bucketfuls.
At the moment you are trying to argue that there must be a better plan for an alcoholic about to jump off a cliff before we intervene. Hes he is flawed but what we absolutely cannot do is allow him to jump off just because his future is unclear. That is the absolute worst course of action.
Ideally we go back to the Americans and ask for a much improved deal for ALL the shares barring 5% to remain a board member to avoid a legal battle. If they do not agree to right their wrongs then we do what the organisation was set up to do - fight for the club. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:47]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:42 - Dec 16 with 1254 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:21 - Dec 16 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I was thinking upload it to a site like Dropbox where people can download the letter themselves, print it off, sign it and then scan/email or send it to an address we agree on. |
Dwight is this something you can do, finalise the draft people are happy with and uploading to dropbox? (Probably better coming from a current member for my own sanity's sake).
Email address is now live:-
swanseatimeforchange@outlook.com
I will get them all printed off and sent. If we get the required amount, I will give the word on here so people in the same boat as myself can join/rejoin, then I will get them sent recorded delivery. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:43 - Dec 16 with 1248 views | chad |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:35 - Dec 16 by airedale |
Yes, serious post. If you give people a template there's a good chance they will use it as it is in good faith. However when the recipients get it, they won't necessarily have a clue who its from. Say its signed by John Smith, how will they know who he is? So you need to put further information on there so that they can refer to their [membership] database and confirm that the letter is from a valid source. To complicate things even more, if its from John Smith at 47 Acacia Avenue, how will they know whether its John Smith senior [father] or John Smith junior [son] or even John Smith the lodger? Membership numbers might help, but who's to say that the letter hasn't been forged?
#normalisation [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:37]
|
Ux when you say
"The argument needs to be different IMO.
The members voted a course of action in the summer. Priority #1 is arguing what has changed since then. Unless you can do that, the argument to annul the vote is weak, on any level. "
Well yes things have obviously changed and 2 insiders have confirmed that for us with their resignations and the fact that Phil would vote against now
But you also omit the conduct of the vote and the lack of impartiality when presenting the arguments for and against
I was not the only one speaking on that issue at the meeting
edit sorry did not mean to quote the above post [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:48]
| | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:43 - Dec 16 with 1248 views | monmouth |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 11:37 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
:) Can I have a think while I'm out running?
I'll try and solve the middle east issue whilst I'm on mile three too.
The first imperative for me is to get better, more capable professional people running the Trust, more geared towards the current circumstances. Present company always excepted. |
Second imperative:
Get a vote backing legal action IF a deal with the following profile cannot be agreed - not negotiated - by the 31 January, say.
Immediate payment pro rata to what the other shareholders got with no drag rights for 10% or whatever of the shares.
So the Trust, not the Yanks set the terms of the deal to avoid the legal action that they have a mandate to take.
I really hate to say it but:
TAKE. BACK. CONTROL.
(Ps what's changed? You are kidding, no? Enough to get your own chairman of over 10 years that would bleed black and white to resign.) [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 11:46]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
