CTWD publishes its draft vision, aims and objectives

[FILEYseadog]

A supporters trust will only be able to speak for the majority IF the majority of supporters join

Unless they do anything they say will count for nothing in reality

Will this supporters trust have a new name or will it be called city till we die.

I once said CTWDs intention was getting a place on the board only to be told that was NOT the case .

IF the name stays the same i doubt if it will ever get many new members and it will never speak for the majority

 

[FILEYseadog]

What happens if 18,000 fans join and a majority vote to support AA and a name change ?

 

[Fez]

I don't believe there is anything sudden about this metamorphosis (of CTWD) into a Trust; it has been a gradual procedure since the Spring.

CTWD only can speak for its members; to claim otherwise is misleading and incorrect.

Expecting current postholders to rule out any future involvement on the club board is unrealistic and opens the door to future claims of dishonesty - it's a gratuitous point and should be dealt with at a more appropriate time.

The 'Hip-Flask' nonsense requires a strong and clearly made apology for the unnecessary offence and lack of judgment inherent is seeming to be associated and supportive of the mindless gift. If that is not forthcoming then the chairman needs to reconsider his position. All of the conciliatory words and actions penned by CTWD are worthless, otherwise.

Steve Bruce makes a point of giving the owners great credit for what has been achieved on the pitch, perhaps it is nothing more than reasonable to accept that, as it is blatantly true - it reflects on all concerned, just as failure does.

 

[originallambrettaman]

A supporters trust will only be able to speak for the majority IF the majority of supporters join

Unless they do anything they say will count for nothing in reality

Will this supporters trust have a new name or will it be called city till we die.

I once said CTWDs intention was getting a place on the board only to be told that was NOT the case .

IF the name stays the same i doubt if it will ever get many new members and it will never speak for the majority

What you were actually claiming previously, is that CTWD were trying to take control of the club for free, which was never a realistic proposition, nor was it ever true.

All trusts believe that they should have representation on the board of their club, to give fans a direct voice and to make sure that things like name changes, badge changes, seat moves etc are not done without consultation.

This is currently most successfully being achieved at Swansea City, where the fans own 20% of the club and have a seat on the board.

 

[DMD]

A few more.


What issues is the CTWD rep proposing to raise at tomorrow nights working group meeting, and how were these decided on?


Why isn't using a thread like this for fans to raise points for the meeting a higher priority at the moment?


What points were raised at previous meetings (including informal) and what's been the outcome?


One asked previously that I feel has a baring on the aims and objectives.

I think I'm right in saying that one of the long term aims (if that's the right phrase) of CTWD is to create a trust similar to that at Portsmouth, where representatives for the fans have a place at board meetings.

Could someone from CTWD give some idea of how that would work, in terms a dummy like me can understand?

 

[mauled1904]

Becoming an independent supporters’ trust
In June 2014 we received overwhelming support from our members for starting the process of becoming a fully fledged supporters’ trust for Hull City AFC fans. We will fulfil this objective through the merger of CTWD with the Tigers Co-operative, hopefully by the end of 2014

How many of the 1800 members is an 'overwhelming support'? Is this a political, made up number. or will you actually tell us the number. I know a few members of CTWD and they were never asked.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Becoming an independent supporters’ trust
In June 2014 we received overwhelming support from our members for starting the process of becoming a fully fledged supporters’ trust for Hull City AFC fans. We will fulfil this objective through the merger of CTWD with the Tigers Co-operative, hopefully by the end of 2014

How many of the 1800 members is an 'overwhelming support'? Is this a political, made up number. or will you actually tell us the number. I know a few members of CTWD and they were never asked.

I've posted the numbers on here previously, I can't remember them off the top of my head, but I'll find them and post them again later.

 

[originallambrettaman]

A few more.


What issues is the CTWD rep proposing to raise at tomorrow nights working group meeting, and how were these decided on?


Why isn't using a thread like this for fans to raise points for the meeting a higher priority at the moment?


What points were raised at previous meetings (including informal) and what's been the outcome?


One asked previously that I feel has a baring on the aims and objectives.

The new fan group is still very much in it's infancy and so far we're mainly been waiting to see what happened with it. We have not had anyone exclusively at the meeting as a CTWD rep, nor have CTWD as an organisation raised any questions.

I believe that everyone who has attended these meetings so far has done so as an individual, nobody has attended more than one(as far as I'm aware) and we're not even 100% sure how many there have been.

The main purpose of tomorrow night, as I understand it, is to review the main issues that had been raised at the previous meetings and to update everyone on what progress is being made on these issues.

Personally speaking, the main issues I raised were with regard to the policing/stewarding and segregation at the KC and the need to get a fan onto the SAG to give it some balance. I believe that this is one of the things that will be confirmed tomorrow night.

Following tomorrow's meeting, CTWD might be able to take a more formal view on the fan group, at the moment we're waiting to find out what format it will take ongoing, how representative it will be and how effective we think it's likely to be.

I responded to your question myself, as CTWD are waiting to see what develops before taking a view on how best it can be involved, for the reasons outlined above.

 

[cheshireles]

What you were actually claiming previously, is that CTWD were trying to take control of the club for free, which was never a realistic proposition, nor was it ever true.

All trusts believe that they should have representation on the board of their club, to give fans a direct voice and to make sure that things like name changes, badge changes, seat moves etc are not done without consultation.

This is currently most successfully being achieved at Swansea City, where the fans own 20% of the club and have a seat on the board.

Under our current ownership whether the trust owns shares or not, the outcome/influence would be exactly the same?

 

[DMD]

The new fan group is still very much in it's infancy and so far we're mainly been waiting to see what happened with it. We have not had anyone exclusively at the meeting as a CTWD rep, nor have CTWD as an organisation raised any questions.

I believe that everyone who has attended these meetings so far has done so as an individual, nobody has attended more than one(as far as I'm aware) and we're not even 100% sure how many there have been.

The main purpose of tomorrow night, as I understand it, is to review the main issues that had been raised at the previous meetings and to update everyone on what progress is being made on these issues.

Personally speaking, the main issues I raised were with regard to the policing/stewarding and segregation at the KC and the need to get a fan onto the SAG to give it some balance. I believe that this is one of the things that will be confirmed tomorrow night.

Following tomorrow's meeting, CTWD might be able to take a more formal view on the fan group, at the moment we're waiting to find out what format it will take ongoing, how representative it will be and how effective we think it's likely to be.

I responded to your question myself, as CTWD are waiting to see what develops before taking a view on how best it can be involved, for the reasons outlined above.

Even informal meetings?

Will someone be getting back with the idiots guide to trusts?

 

[balkan tiger]

Some people on here need to get out into the real world and see how it works. A spokesperson or group speaking on behalf others can never canvas the opinion of all those concerned. Be it the RAC or AA talking about what would be in ( their opinion ) the best interests of motorists, or OFCOM, OFTEL and all the other OF----. speaking on behalf of consumer / customer. The same applies to political parties, lobby groups, campaigning for a street crossing patrol.
Those who are concerned enough form a group, second level interest join a group, third level understand and accept that said group is doing the best it can on their behalf, and then come keyboard warriors who do nowt but critisise and moan.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Even informal meetings?

Will someone be getting back with the idiots guide to trusts?

CTWD haven't attended any informal meetings at the club.

I'm not on the working group dealing with the trust constitution, so I'm leaving that one to be answered by someone with better knowledge of the detail than I have.

 

[DMD]

Some people on here need to get out into the real world and see how it works. A spokesperson or group speaking on behalf others can never canvas the opinion of all those concerned. Be it the RAC or AA talking about what would be in ( their opinion ) the best interests of motorists, or OFCOM, OFTEL and all the other OF----. speaking on behalf of consumer / customer. The same applies to political parties, lobby groups, campaigning for a street crossing patrol.
Those who are concerned enough form a group, second level interest join a group, third level understand and accept that said group is doing the best it can on their behalf, and then come keyboard warriors who do nowt but critisise and moan.

He criticised and moaned...

The RAC and AA carry out regular surveys of members opinions, politicians have surgeries and are voted for.

A group claiming to represent supporters should, as a matter of course, demonstrate how they do that and welcome fans to raise issues, it's after all the groups raison d' etre.

 

[DMD]

CTWD haven't attended any informal meetings at the club.

I'm not on the working group dealing with the trust constitution, so I'm leaving that one to be answered by someone with better knowledge of the detail than I have.

If an individual committee member has discussions with the club, would the club know in what capacity they were talking?

 

[balkan tiger]

He criticised and moaned...

The RAC and AA carry out regular surveys of members opinions, politicians have surgeries and are voted for.

A group claiming to represent supporters should, as a matter of course, demonstrate how they do that and welcome fans to raise issues, it's after all the groups raison d' etre.

I often see spokespeople from the RAC and AA speaking on behalf of motorists but they never asked for my opinion. They go with their members views ( a small minority of all road users ) and the general groundswell of opinion. Where that groundswell of opinion comes from is all around you, it maybe their man trying to get you to join at a motorway services who listens to motorists and takes on board their views, among other ways.
My main point is you can't get the opinion of everyone on everything, you have to trust others to do their best for everyone.
This very forum is now one of those ways to get your points to CTWD and have your qustions answered, it just pisses me off when some, usually the same ones over and over again do nowt but moan and offer nothing constructive.

 

[originallambrettaman]

If an individual committee member has discussions with the club, would the club know in what capacity they were talking?

There haven't been any informal meetings with any of the committee members in any capacity.

At least none that I'm aware of.

 

[DMD]

I often see spokespeople from the RAC and AA speaking on behalf of motorists but they never asked for my opinion. They go with their members views ( a small minority of all road users ) and the general groundswell of opinion. Where that groundswell of opinion comes from is all around you, it maybe their man trying to get you to join at a motorway services who listens to motorists and takes on board their views, among other ways.
My main point is you can't get the opinion of everyone on everything, you have to trust others to do their best for everyone.
This very forum is now one of those ways to get your points to CTWD and have your qustions answered, it just pisses me off when some, usually the same ones over and over again do nowt but moan and offer nothing constructive.

Are you a member? I get very regular requests for my opinion from them. I've also contacted them over issues they've raised and discussed it with them, both as an individual and as part of other groups.

Commenting isn't necessarily pissing and moaning and negative perceptions should be seen as a positive by the group, as it gives them the opportunity to address that perception and grow from it.

 

[DMD]

There haven't been any informal meetings with any of the committee members in any capacity.

At least none that I'm aware of.

It was discussions I asked about rather than meetings, but I'll leave it there.

 

[Fez]

Some people on here need to get out into the real world and see how it works. A spokesperson or group speaking on behalf others can never canvas the opinion of all those concerned. Be it the RAC or AA talking about what would be in ( their opinion ) the best interests of motorists, or OFCOM, OFTEL and all the other OF----. speaking on behalf of consumer / customer. The same applies to political parties, lobby groups, campaigning for a street crossing patrol.
Those who are concerned enough form a group, second level interest join a group, third level understand and accept that said group is doing the best it can on their behalf, and then come keyboard warriors who do nowt but critisise and moan.

I think you're right, to a point, about bodies being representative, although those you name are given some form of official recognition by a relevant authority; perhaps, at some point, CTWD will be able to demonstrate their level of standing through to the FSF and the FA. I am both a member and still supportive of CTWD, although I will question when I feel it appropriate.

 

[Obadiah]

I would like CTWD to look at building links with Siemens to try and get them involved with Hull City. Getting in touch with some of the international contacts we acquired through the campaign may help build some links.

For DMD:

A supporters trust can be what you want it to be it depends on the constitution. A good constitution would allow the trust to campaign on behalf of its members within the aims of the trust.

The trust's ruling body may be elected at the AGM and issue regular report backs.

The trust could raise money for its work, sell merchandise and buy shares in the club.

The trust could organise surveys of members and/or supporters.

The trust could take up the concerns of individual or groups of fans. Such as cheap passes for the over 60s, fascilities for supporters with disabilities etc.

The trust could organise fans/protests. For example, whilst not strictly a trust, the Spirit of Shankley organise mosaics on the Kop. There's nothing to stop CTWD trying to organise the singing in the North, East and South stands so we all leave room for each other.

[video=youtube;FPDBwlJqc2s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPDBwlJqc2s[/video]

The work of the trust is limited only by the imagination of its committee and members.

For those interested here's the link to Swansea City's trust. A mid-table Premier League club where the fans have a 20% shareholding. Under documents is a link to the agm minutes where the chairman gives a report on the previous year's activity.

http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/default.aspx