Whatever I put is entirely up to me. I don't need permission. Far from ignoring what you put, I'm considering and enquiring about it, because it doesn't stack up. It's you doing the ignoring.
Could you please conduct this fascinating debate on a different thread, not the one focussed on ideas for the Trust moving forward. Thanks.
Glad to, although I do think they highlight some fundamental problems that limit the trust's progress. The extent that the club are talking to the trust or not being one. Do you have any views on the couple of initiatives I suggested before the interuption?
I'll do another summary, as before, in due course. That was the commitment I gave you before, and it remains my commitment. Hope that helps.
Aye, it'd be useful if discussion on the ideas was encouraged, so they could be broadened. Simply listing, accepting or rejecting or focusing on just one element is only a tiny step forward. Hopefully others will have fresh ideas or opinions on the suggestions posted.
Isn't this a part of the problem? To establish a credible and enduring line of communication with the club, would it not be better done through Andy Mills, Trust Communications Director? I understand why you get involved, but is it counter-productive to establishing an enduring and officially accepted conduit? Are the questions you ask only able to be asked by you or could you introduce Andy into the loop to offer more structure going forward. It just seems ad hoc when it doesn't need to be.
We all have allocated roles and responsibilities, Andy updates the website and writes the weekly newsletter, I deal with the club and handle memberships. I already know all the personalities involved, I'm already on the FWG and now the SAG, I was the obvious choice to fill the role.
You were notninitially on the FWG as trust rep and you're not on SAG as trust rep, the club were pissed off when they felt that had been implied, which for me confirms what was said last year, that the club won't engage with the trust as it is currently set up. Although it will talk to individuals that are trust members, there is a subtle difference. If the relationship between the club and the trust is, as you claim, different from last year, which was talked of as being non-existent, why did the trust write the open letter to Ehab asking if they could talk? Couldn't you have just asked the club directly?
Ah, I see it becomes clearer, but it is hard work understanding how it functions, especially when you throw in the confusion of how it comes across on here. We now seem to have arrived at a point I first sought to understand a very long time ago. Can I suggest the roles and accountabilities are updated on the next revision of the HCST website? For my part I am pleased that you have adopted that role, although I think it is better for all if it is published in a formal manner. Thanks for putting this to bed.
I understand what you are getting at but there needs to be an element of wriggle-room in most things. This is, as we both know, simply club employees trying to do the decent thing without it drawing any sense of authority from the owners. I think that what we have now is about as collaborative as the poor policy of the owners will allow. The open letter wasn't perfect, but it is clear it was aimed at rising above this 'arrangement' and trying to draw reaction from the owners - or highlight the lack of it. It's a game not of the HCST's making. Let's now give it time todevelop under this new understanding.
Each directors responsibilities are generally clear from the meeting minutes, though I appreciate the point you're making and it could certainly be clearer. It might be an idea if we include each of the roles and responsibilities in the directors page on the website, I think it's something worth looking at.
ZZ Aye, that is where I was looking and where I would think most would look. It was only when I saw your photo that I realised you had started moonlighting as a serial killer in Fortitude! A dramatic change from Wembley!
Aye, I understand that, but there is only so much that can be done with the circumstances being what they are, so I will wait and see if we end up with new cooperative owners before Jumanji kicks in. Others can plough their own furrows if they wish and no doubt will, as the HCST might not be everyone's cup of tea, although I do honestly believe that they need time to develop, learn and grow in their new roles, with some allowance for sometimes getting it wrong; we all want much the same thing and must be cautious we aren't the biggest elephants.
I've said all along, a strong fans group is important. But they should be open to question as sat they're trying to be representative, not an alternative board. It's some of the attitude and 'versions of the truth' as well as bits I've seen that give me big cause to doubt some elements as they currently are. I'd hate to think it ballses up what could be a good thing and alienates a fair few fans on the way. We've lost enough already, and it's not all down to the owners. A bit of reflection is in order in my view. Let's not forget, this thread was set up as a communication line to the Trust. That should be a two way conversation.
The purpose of this thread is to encourage discussion of ideas so I think I've covered that one. And nothing has been rejected. I'm happy to let the discussion of the latest ideas posted in this thread develop and take its course, before suggesting a way forward. In that regard, it might be worth repeating your motorcycling t shirt idea, as it may have now been lost amid the more general discussion between yourself, Fez and OLM.
You may be better not dismissing it as 'a general discussion' and looking at it as something for consideration for ways of improving the trust. There are quite a few elements raised are inferred that are mentioned as reasons for not wanting to be associated with the trust.
I nearly fell for that then. That's your blast at 'humour' isn't it. Posting abusive ****e to change a subject and then saying "it was a joke ffs " See I'm learning, I might try the same you pompous prick. You'll have Al on your back now for nacking yet another thread. Piece of piss.
