I'm unsure as to who actually organized the latest protest, but I know for certain the name of the person that funded the cost of the stress balls. Of course I could be lying, but I'm not. The views expressed in my posts arte not necessarily mine.
Nobody was 'in charge' of CTWD, it was run by a committee of twenty-odd individuals, some had titles, some didn't, but it was run collectively. It makes me laugh when someone accuses a Trust director of obviously knowing exactly what every other Trust director thinks or does, like it's some sort of job.
Mark was chairman, a very good one as well, but he didn’t decide what CTWD did, or tell others what to do, it was a collective.
CTWD operated as a collective without a chairman during the initial highly successful campaign against the name change. It was only once CTWD started to accept formal memberships and adopted a constitution that it elected officers, including a chairman. That is the organisation that merged a year or so later with the Tigers Co-op to become the Supporters' Trust.
You're very funny Happy. The CTWD committee was full of gobby, opinionated individuals who came together to stop the Allams changing our name. Nobody could lead us in the way you have hinted at. What really happened was we decided how to go about things by discussion and consensus. Sometimes we couldn't achieve consensus so we had a vote and the majority position was adopted. Sometimes the discussion went on and on, especially if I was speaking. We then agreed who would implement what was decided and left them broadly to get on with it. Each committee member was informed, sometimes in great detail, what was happening outside our spheres of responsibility. We had a number of very talented individuals as can be seen by the material we produced and the way the Twitter and Facebook accounts were ran. Democracy is a wonderful thing and in this case was very successful.
So why is Happy always argumentative? Is that he is still an Allam supporter in disguise? Or maybe not even in disguise. Or is it he simply doesn't like some people or what they stand for. Comes across as the 'somewhat self righteous type'. To be avoided? Or is he hen pecked? Ah well. Back to the golf
Sure. That might be how it worked in practice, but, Gretton was the Chairman. In name at least. That was widely known. Odd you'd choose to have a chairman, given how the committee was run, why was that?
He doesn' strike me as a people person. Him and his sidekick would rather argue and divide people. Can' think who that reminds me of
Excellent summing up. I particularly like the bit saying each committee member was informed, in great detail, about what was happening outside our spheres of responsibility. Excellent. So hardly likely the chair of the trust wouldn't tell the vice chair he would be giving a speech in the Trust pub to the newly formed protest group that everyone was talking about. Thanks.
I’m abit out of touch with it all. Who is Allam meeting meeting next week? And is there any point? Layman terms please.
I know hardly anything about the CTWD machinery, but I do know it’s absolutely impossible to run any committee without a good Chair The level of consensus is not relevant to the need for a Chair
Happy, do you even know what the function of a Chairman actually is? If you do then you are being contrarian and argumentative for the sake of it. If you don't know then go ****ing look it up and stop wasting everyone's time.
Some people the Allams have chosen from a bigger pool of people. I would be very surprised if there is.
I'm not a member of the Trust and have no idea how they organise their business. Just because that's what happened on the CTWD Committee organised business that way doesn't mean the Trust followed suit.
