BULLSHIT. Nobody stepped up to the plate, because they were asked to hang fire while a survey no ****er really wanted was finished off. It's only since you piped up with your opinion today that it's become apparent the trust dumped it some time back. Ace communication for something the website implies you're involved in. There were suspicions on the reason the trust (or what ever it was called at the time) got involved at the time, it looks like the suspicions were not unfounded.
Thank you, I can easily understand how that came about, they call it life. I do find it strange that no one else has come forward to take up the project from anywhere, not just the Trust, as I was led to believe, on here, that it was a highly emotive subject for some. I'm sure that on the next revision of the Trust website someone will look at a more precise way to describe your campaigns, as we know the world is perfect and no latitude can be given, everything must always be the result of skulduggery, mustn't it!
Now that really is bullshit, I simply posted my opinion, the person in the trust who was involved in this doesn't even post on here and any decision to dump it would be his, not mine. You know the person involved doesn't post on here, you have his email address, you also know he posts on CI. If you wanted to know what was happening, you should have asked him, nobody on here was running it as well you know.
No survey was actually done. A survey was proposed at a meeting late last year, a proposed set of survey questions were emailed out for peoples comments, there were a couple of comments (mainly that the survey was longer than it should be) and it was going to be edited, but that's where it stalled.
I never said it was done. It's still with the trust. They wanted it, but never produced it. There's nothing secretive about the group, it was announced in a specific thread on here I believe.
Is it **** bull ****. What you put in your initial reply is bollocks. Contact was made, the last reply from the trust was leave it with us. The next reply is you piping up and Al show g he's been given a duff version of events. I may well get in touch again, with the person in question. To be fair, it's o lybtoday someone's mentioned they've possibly binned it. Once again, **** communication, particularly when there were clearly people willing to help. **** me, is this how you behave towards people supporting the trust?
In reply to Fez, I would love to be able to say that the OSC would take on the task of improving the atmosphere at the KC. I believe there is another way forward with is and I will post a seperate thread soon. No big secret, it is just that I do not want to step on anyone's toes. Some know privately, what I would like to see happen and I will know more when I get back.
Thank you and sorry for misunderstanding your post, as I thought your 'produced' was referring to the completed poll after distribution to those who were to be polled and the 'changes' referred to some suggested outcomes from the poll. As I said, it is difficult to follow your conversation, but I'm getting there and I hope others are too. It seems the Trust was an individual member who has lost much of their touch with things due to changed circumstances - I agree that they should have made it clear there would be no follow-up, especially if the email group was still accessible to them - but can't we be a tad mote sympathetic to a voluntary group. You did say, "A few prompts have been pushed since, with just another request from the trust asking people to hang fire as they were on with it.", at least that is something tangible you can give us background on - when were these prompts? Ah, I must have missed that thread, which is also why I don't really advocate this board for such a matter, anymore than I do the FWG. I have not suggested the group is secretive, but it's details are certainly not public domain to my knowledge.
Aye, nobody tells you how to run a trust. There was a group of people that the trust became involved with, that at that time were keen on being actively involved. The trust made suggestions and asked if the group would hang fire until they were sorted. Since then, despite messages and questions being asked, it's stalled awaiting action from the trust. Today, you've mentioned it's folded because the person involved from the trust now has other commitments, and seemingly expect someone to have acted on that in the last few hours. Although it seems to drift between being just your opinion and trust policy. Now, I can readily accept his circumstances changing, but don't you think it would have been good manners if nothing else to mention it to those involved and asking? One or more could and would have taken it up. You reckoned Gretton's forte was making sure people knew the roles and carried them out. Now being fair, if he's been fed the same nonsense that Al seems to have been, I could see why he maybe didn't do it on this occasion. But given you and Al have recived A version of events, it would seem it has been discussed by committee members. Did not one of them think it was worth letting those in the group know? You can spin it how you want, and I'm sure you will, but that's a shoddy way to treat volunteers and a piss poor approach to supporting the team.
You keep trying to paint this as a trust failure, but this thing was being handled by one trust member, it wasn't something the trust as a whole were involved in. Other than an initial discussion last year about assisting with setting it up and Chris volunteering to lead it, it's not something that I remember being discussed at a single trust meeting. Aim your ire at Chris, the rest of us were not supposed to be involved in organising anything. That said, I completely agree that if nothing was happening, then those who had volunteered should have been told.
This thread is as ****ing pathetic as could have been expected. Another HCST thread turned into "The DMD Show" This thread, along with every other HCST thread show why this forum is not a suitable platform to discuss Trust issues. There are plenty of avenues open for people to contact the trust with any suggestions or ideas. Any official discussions of these suggestions & ideas should be carried out in a public open forum & any decisions should be made via member & committee votes. If people have something to say then turn up to a meeting & have your say. On here there's no guarantee people are even City supporters. It's too anonymous with too many cowards present. It's de ja vu all over again.
What's this thread for again? Who has just revealed the trust have dropped something without telling anyone involved? The whole point is, the trust need to be inclusive, not exclusive.
With regret, I agree with that Ben. You said some of this a couple of weeks ago and I thought we could mitigate the problems encountered, but that's not been the case. It's a lesson learned the hard way. I will report back to this thread when the Trust's website forum is completed, up and running. I'm told we are close, but as ever we rely on the generosity of volunteers committing their spare time.
The trust, or whatever they were called were involved. It's a cop out to try to lay all the blame on one member, especially as other comittee members are discussing it and the trust involvement. Do you really think this will encourage volunteers to a trust that says it is overworked? It's done. It can't be undone. Much the same as some other issues. But lessons can and should be learned. The first step is looking at where the mistakes were and looking to prevent them happening again. Getting defensive and into denial will progress very little.
You really should look at why it's happened. I know some feel it's just with some personal issue, but I genuinely want a decent fans group. At the minute, my experience suggests we're quite a way off having one, especially if it sulks at what it perceived es as criticism. The attitude from some stinks. The discussion should all lead to a stronger trust, not one that wants to avoid open debate. That's one of the criticisms of the Allams. It doesn 't need to be a witch hunt, just a look at where things could be improved. That could get you more ideas and volunteers for any work you're planning. Leaving things as they are will just lead to more people getting put off being involved.
I see. So fresh from implying that I've lied about events (I haven't, your posts corroborate what I said, albeit from an extreme viewpoint), you now suggest my attitude stinks. And that's your way of encouraging discussion. It's not a method of engagement I feel compelled to respond to positively, I'm afraid to say.
Did I say you'd lied, or did I say the version you'd got was bollocks? There is a difference. I didn't say your attitude stinks either. I will say you're a tad sensitive and quick to take offence, even when one is not offered. Over and above that, believe it or not, I try to steer away from the personal side and try to look at what the issues are. Once again, the issue that shines out is poor communication. I keep hearing the trust is busy. Do you think things like this will have queue of volunteers knocking on the door?
