As the most used BWFC fan site, we'd like to gauge opinion

Do you know what an 'eligible' member for the vote was?

 

I see you're still pushing your main gripe about not being chosen to play, again!

 

Are you sure you haven't got an axe to grind over your offer being snubbed? Because it sounds like it, again.

 

An eligible member was defined by the independent Electoral Commission's Officer - it involved being a real person (not someone's dog, cat, parrot or whatever else people registered as members), of voting age, who had paid their membership fee by a certain date (two weeks before the election date or something like that).

 

"Chosen to play, again" what on Earth are you going on about? 

 

You do understand my invite was for them to post on Nuts - to have a platform to reach out to people who haven't signed up as members - not for me to go to them for a meeting or a chat, or anything..

 

Have you misunderstood something perhaps?

 

Anyway, if you cared to look back through this thread 'Happy' this sites owner, stated that he closed down the part of this site set aside for the ST because of non involvement.  The ST have blanked everybody not just the Nuts forum.

 

Believe what you want about me having an axe.  I told you the truth of the matter.  I won't be losing any sleep over it if you don't want to take my word.

Are you for real?

 

I've posted a link to an OFFICIAL SUPPORTERS TRUST DOCUMENT that states as at the 9th July, 2016 that their membership entitled to vote was only 2,537 - a far cry from the fake membership numbers the ST trotted out at the time and a far cry from Mounts 6-7,000 members he's been 'told' they have.

 

I would hazard a guess that many of those 2,537 (which was just a few weeks after the Legends Game) have since had a change of mind about supporting them as can be evidenced by the almost unanimous view of them on here and social media generally everywhere else!

 

Here's the link again, perhaps if you read it the first time I posted it, rather than posted what you did you wouldn't have made yourself look somewhat stupid.

 

http://www.bwfcst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EMG-Statement-09.07.16.pdf

 

As for the ST seeking club ownership - I posted that link up because Mounts keeps saying he doesn't believe that is the ST's intent - even though they are on record of already attempting it!!!

 

As for an axe to grind - I don't have one.

 

I certainly don't want to play at being Football Manager with them - whatever that is supposed to mean - I simply want the ST to explain themselves and their actions to ALL of us supporters and not just hide behind their closed doors. To give them a voice to be heard more widely than their newsletter to their own members, to engage and convince those of us who are critical of them.

 

Christ they went to town on Davies and Gartside for not communicating with the fans - yet the ST are even WORSE despite their promise to be open, transparent and honest!

 

They claim to be the voice of the fans - well if that's the case why aren't they saying and acting in a way the vast majority of fans want - rather than pissed off so many of us in such a short space of time?

 

They won't use Nuts as a platform - they've made that clear by snubbing us all these many times - nor will they come on here and explain, listen and defend their actions on here either - they clearly don't want to listen to views they don't like, nor bothered to communicate with anyone other than their own circle.

 

They've thrown poor Mounts under the bus rather than step on here and back him up.

 

Mounts can't see it though, nor he ever will I suspect.

 

More fool him.

No ones thrown me under a bus my opinion has always been we should have a Trust before I met smith twice and Izza once my only motive is to trying to ensure there will still be a BWFC should anything untoward happen and if the Trust can also help the club via sponsorship and build links with the wider community that's s brucie bonus. Whereas you only come out of your closet to diss the trust not seen one other post BWFC related and you've not even been to a game since god knows when. Look forward to a joyful non Trust related BWFC post from you some time soon, however don't think that's ever going to happen.

Edited July 10, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

If they are there to help the club then why work against the guy who's kept the club going.

If they are there to help the club then why work against the guy who's kept the club going.

The Trust are not working against Ken they are having meetings with him to see how they can help, however part of Trust role is to keep watching brief. Presume you are talking about the ACV this which protects the stadium? It was placed when club was in precarious position and was at that point there was worry it could be sold without any notification. I'm still in favour of the ACV but I think vote should be given to Trust members on whether to support KA wish to have it lifted. My view on this might differ from Trust board members.

Edited July 10, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

No ones thrown me under a bus my opinion has always been we should have a Trust before I met smith twice and Izza once my only motive is to trying to ensure there will still be a BWFC should anything untoward happen and if the Trust can also help the club via sponsorship and build links with the wider community that's s brucie bonus. Whereas you only come out of your closet to diss the trust not seen one other post BWFC related and you've not even been to a game since god knows when. Look forward to a joyful non Trust related BWFC post from you some time soon, however don't think that's ever going to happen.

 

There's over a third of a million Bolton Wanderers posts here on the forum I started, own and run, including a large chunk of my own - have a read of them to your little hearts content.

 

http://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/

And yet they have yet to show any positivity towards KA as the owner and his saving the club , all their statements have had an edge of suspicion and negativity towards KA until recently when they floated the really helpful ideas of improved Wi-Fi and reinstating fanzone, as well as helping the academy, hardly revolutionary ideas in helping to save the club. 

Is really incumbent upon the st to come onto other forums to offer their wares?

 

Not sure; they've got their own web site and have meetings etc.

If your interested you can find out easily enough.

And yet they have yet to show any positivity towards KA as the owner and his saving the club , all their statements have had an edge of suspicion and negativity towards KA until recently when they floated the really helpful ideas of improved Wi-Fi and reinstating fanzone, as well as helping the academy, hardly revolutionary ideas in helping to save the club.

I have to agree about some older comments seemed that way and some of my comments when I met the board were similar to yours.

 

Hopefully recent positive comments and those going forward will redress that however sometimes the Trust will have to pass comment on aspects of the club ownership that Ken Might not like unfortunately that goes with the territory of being an independent Supporters Trust.  

Edited July 10, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

I have to agree about some older comments seemed that way and some of my comments when I met the board were similar to yours.

 

Hopefully recent positive comments and those going forward will redress that however sometimes the Trust will have to pass comment on aspects of the club ownership that Ken Might not like unfortunately that goes with the territory of being an independent Supporters Trust.  

Which is fine as long as the comments are representative of their membership and not just an individuals on the board, especially when commenting in the name of the ST.

 

I am for the ST keeping a watching brief in terms of the clubs financial position, as long as this watching brief doesn't start to impede the recovery of the club under Anderson.  In the meantime the ST can be used to work on fan initiatives like the ones already mentioned and ensuring dialogue between the fans and the club is maintained if they need to be proactively doing things

Which is fine as long as the comments are representative of their membership and not just an individuals on the board, especially when commenting in the name of the ST.

 

I am for the ST keeping a watching brief in terms of the clubs financial position, as long as this watching brief doesn't start to impede the recovery of the club under Anderson. In the meantime the ST can be used to work on fan initiatives like the ones already mentioned and ensuring dialogue between the fans and the club is maintained if they need to be proactively doing things

 

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

 

As for an axe to grind - I don't have one. 

 

 

you hide it well

Fake news!

you hide it well

????

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

Ditto. Summed it up well.

I'm taking a big fuck off "sack the trust" banner to the first game of the season.

 

That'll learn em

They have made a statement on the accounts....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many happy returns Stelios Giannakopulos who turns 43 today.

...

Edited July 15, 20178 yr by ErnestTurnip

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wanderers/15448919.Wanderers_Supporters__39__Trust_launches_player_sponsorship_initiative/

 

Some positive news regarding the Trust.

"New chairman Daniel Izza"

 

Unelected acting chairman.

If you were out and about and saw Mike Smith approaching, you'd definitely make an effort to cross the road and walk in the opposite direction.

aye

 

i still have an issue but im determined to hold them to account 

 

the statement was going oh so well but izza couldnt resist the 'holding to account' line

 

 

we know

 

we get it

 

you dont speak for me

I notice the trust will never, ever give Ken any credit for anything. Every statement is "we have to keep holding to account" or some other such total drivel. The trust doesn't hold anybody to account. They like to think they do, but the reality is if the majority shareholder of Burnden Leisure can do what they like. Have Blackpool's supporters trust stopped Oyston doing what he wants? Have they hell.

 

Strikes me they'd have a far better influence if they stopped, blatantly sniffing around for any sign of trouble (Izza limits his twitter activity to re-tweeting bad news stories from the BN now) and started co-operating with Ken and finding ways to support the ownership in advancing the club. Be positive and constructive rather than sneering and negative.

 

I won't hold my breath. 

Iles barely ever retweets non bolton news stuff on twitter.

 

He couldn't wait to retweet izzas post about the article.

 

Lost the plot that mon

Iles barely ever retweets non bolton news stuff on twitter.

 

He couldn't wait to retweet izzas post about the article.

 

Lost the plot that mon

 

Iles and Dearden both suckered in by the trust and their allies. Neither can get their heads around Ken's attempts to run the club as a business. Probably because both are a bit thick. 

 

Remember Dearden questioning Ken about the fallout with Holdsworth and legal battle at the time and just repeating 'but Ken, something has to be done, and if it can't be you need to move aside and let someone else come have a go'. Yep because running a business is about 'letting someone have a go'. 

Iles barely ever retweets non bolton news stuff on twitter.

 

He couldn't wait to retweet izzas post about the article.

 

Lost the plot that mon

He won't be far off a stadium ban.