Fez on the first two comments I refer to previous postings from PLT and Obi. Third comment, I cannot join CTWD, no one can remember. If you read that I think the flask was ok where do I say that? So the only supporters who the trust represents are its members? Ok that's fine. Now I know. So they do not have any claims to represent the community then?
These threads are so ****ing boring, I struggle to see how they excite so much comment. I've not read it either, can someone tell me if I've missed anything? I assume it's fez, obi and omega man going toe to toe in their weekly points scoring exercise? With the odd cynical blubber thrown in by the usual suspects.
Dear me, you take a night off posting and you get pages of nonsense. We could have up to ten committe members, ten people put themselves forward, so ten committee members got voted in. Details of all prospective committee members were emailed to all members before Saturday and they were invited to submit proxy votes for or against any candidate. To have almost 700 members in the first five weeks is way above our expectations. Almost all supporters' trusts have been born from some sort of campaign and it's much easier to sign people up for a campaign, as they're specifically riled up about an issue, a trust takes more time as it has to prove it's worth. The club have now formally recognised HCST at the FWG meetings and later this morning I will attend the Safety Advisory Group meeting at the KC, the first time a fan representative has ever attended such a meeting at the KC. As time goes on and we prove our worth to fans as a whole, I expect our membership to increase. At the moment, our local media have been very reluctant to give us much exposure, other than reporting on the successful ACV application, they have not reported on anything we're doing, or planning to do, hopefully this will change in time. I have been involved in CTWD since it started as a campaign group, I was acting membership officer during the transition from campaign group to trust and I am now a committee member for the new trust. I am the trusts representative with the club at the FWG meetings and now also the SAG meetings and I have never been Allam-Out.
You may need to hang fire on that, as I understand there are some questions re votes cast and procedures.
You threw in the comment about a discussion you had with a Trust member/official, we have no idea what you discussed. I only questioned one discussion, I don't know where the other has come from. I have never asked you or anyone else to join anything, especially not CTWD, as it no longer exists - where have I? Asking why you don't, in the context of this conversation, is a totally different matter. Read what you put, where you have corrupted what I said and implied something else. In my opinion that is basically correct, they represent their members; as I said, other people, non-members might share their views but not spend a fiver; we all know this happens, but the Trust can only be representative of it's members. But let's add a tad of common-sense, as there will be occasion when the Trust might/will be called upon to offer an opinion, just as the AA/RAC are for driving matters. This is normal when a collective organization gains some level of industry /public/media led recognition. Who knows, once the Trust has been given an opportunity to grow and develop, just as your two groups will have that opportunity, the media, industry nnd general public will have all of the time in the world to select the one they believe more capable and worthy of association and comment. But why ask me this, ask the Trust, you know who they are and they are fully accessible to you, even as a non-members.
Fez. If I am talking bunkum why is an elected member talking about pro and anti name change when discussing the trust? My point is that a if the trust is NEW and has left the past behind, why does anti or pro name change come into it? You cannot have it both ways. Either the trust is a rebranded CTWD (remember its interim name) or it is a completely new organisation. Even you Fez make the same error in one of your posts. Because it is convenient for you, your acceptance that "flaskgate" was a mistake is a far cry from your earlier views. Its fine you have someone who represents your view of the owner now. Supporters Trusts are there for the community as a whole, not for one individual protest, they should aim to be representative of the fan base. How does that stack up with the SAG representative, is he only going to represent the trust or all supporters?
I am attending the SAG meeting as a fan appointed by the FWG to represent all fans, not as a representative of the HCST.
iI have just been looking at the website of the Cardiff City Supporters Trust, especially the election rules. From the accounts I have read on here, they make the recent HCST directors/committee elections seem like a poor man's beer hall putsch.
The quote you posted from PLT seems to agree totally with what I have said, so what is your point? The name-change has not disappeared as we are awaiting the outcome of the FA review' depending on that outcome, a new strategy will be decided upon by the Trust - not CTWD, which no longer exists. Surely that is easy to see? You seem to think that the newly formed Trust is prohibited from tackling the same issue as CTWD did without being tainted in some strange way, when the only difference is that the Trust will be able to tackle more, broader issues and initiatives - once it has been given the good grace to develop a tad, that is. I really do get the impression that some of you want to smother this Trust at its inception. without having good reason or an alternative approach. You really have lost me on this 'Flaskgate' thing! I said it was a mistake and it was, in my opinion. the flask sentiment was a bad idea, the publicising of it was even worse and the lack of any contrition or redress is not what I would have hoped for from an official of the Trust - I have said all of this before and still stand by it; so what is your problem - I have not changed my view whatsoever, it is you having difficulty reading and jumping to your own conclusions. I have that view of the owner and I don't hide it, why should I? I have not stood for office, I am an anonymous forum poster and I don't put words into other folks mouths - you should try it. Gretton stood for office and everyone must have been aware of 'Flaskgate', he was elected, that is how democracy works; but things evolve, don't they? See OLM's answer re:SAG, as he is better positioned to answer it and stop your constant confusion.
That'll require a good explanation if true, sounds well dodgy. There's also a certain amount of irony in the club questioning their own voting process now.
Yes Fez, putting words into other peoples mouths, back room dealings? As for flaskgate I posted that I did not want anyone who calls the owner of the club a **** to represent me, my choice, now you tell me what is wrong with that? I do not support the single issue protest idealism that is displayed by the comments of another board member in his posts on here. What is wrong with that? Your quote "I disagree with CTWD . . . . then join it in it's infancy and make a difference." What is it CTWD or HCST? I stand by this: "I do not want the trust to be pro name change. I want it to represent all supporters and at the moment it doesn't. It should have had a degree of independence but lost the opportunity in the way it was formed." Now you tell me what is wrong with that?
In the same way that political parties represent not only their membership, they represent the community. The football supporting community is at the heart of Supporters Direct and to focus on one single issue is not in my view representative of the Hull City supporting community. The interim trust applied for the KC to become a community asset on behalf of who, its shareholders/ membership or the community?
Pointless answering you any more as you are totally missing the point and getting far too defensive when no one is questioning you. There is nothing wrong with you doing whatever you wish, so maybe allow others the same grace.
Bloody hell, then there's more nonsense! Political parties are formed and ran to represent their members, they can, if they meet the relevant criteria, then apply to contest an election to represent an area, region or nation; if they win that election they will govern within the bounds of their pre-election manifesto - we would hope and expect. If they are not elected then they do not govern or be representative of that region (community). Not hard is it? When did you ever see Screaming Lord Sutch as being anything other than a representative of his own party - I don't know, but I would guess that the few who voted for him did not belong to hhis party - what do you think? Who or which group is focussing on one single issue - just give me a name? "The interim trust applied for the KC to become a community asset on behalf of who, its shareholders/ membership or the community?" There you go, you've got a good question there; I don't know if it has been asked before, but you are asking the wrong person, you should try OLM, PLT or email the HCST account direct.
According to HCST statements made on here, CTWD is a thing of the past and the new Trust marks a fresh start. So why, on News Now, in its release about OLM becoming the fan representative on the SAG, was it necessary to proclaim his CTWD credentials? Or do we need a fresh fresh start?
For me it can only be a positive thing, I was impressed attending the meeting Saturday of the caliber of the people appointed, and the enthusiasm shown by all.
But the SAG meeting is today Good on OLM giving up his time to attend this as a fans representative , we have needed this for a long time
QUOTE="AlRawdah, post: 7643428, member: 1027312"]If you read the rules on the website, it states that the Trust can have between 4 and 10 elected board members. So the suggestion there was a need for a vote for more than 9 board members was a mistake.[/QUOTE] Thank you. Although it might have been worthwhile explaining the error on the press release.
