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

I never get the wifi thing. Doesn't everyone have data packages nowadays?

I never get the wifi thing. Doesn't everyone have data packages nowadays?

or just watch the fucking game. I get score updates from about 10 people round me during the match. For me it's 2 hours I like to not look at my phone

Yes, free wi-fi is a pressing concern to a struggling club.

Please tell me you're taking the piss. This isn't something people really want/need is it?

MK (not for the first time) missed my point.

250k for wi-fi is not a pressing concern, irrespective of who the fuck pays for it.

 

I get 4G in the ground, have shitloads of data. Why provide wifi for peasants on shit phones/phone contracts?

 

If the ST want to spend 250k, do it on something useful.

MK (not for the first time) missed my point.

250k for wi-fi is not a pressing concern, irrespective of who the fuck pays for it.

 

I get 4G in the ground, have shitloads of data. Why provide wifi for peasants on shit phones/phone contracts?

 

If the ST want to spend 250k, do it on something useful.

I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't pay that amount it's most likely that they were exploring if it was possible maybe get a company to sponsor it, it's not a key Trust agenda just meant to illustrate stuff that they are looking amongst many others and shouldn't be used to hang the Trust from the gallows.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

MK (not for the first time) missed my point.

250k for wi-fi is not a pressing concern, irrespective of who the fuck pays for it.

 

I get 4G in the ground, have shitloads of data. Why provide wifi for peasants on shit phones/phone contracts?

 

If the ST want to spend 250k, do it on something useful.

Probably a more robust attempt at a cost benefit analysis than anything attempted by the Trust leadership. Would imagine that they put the option on the table, members thought it was a good idea so they ran with it without doing any scrutiny on it.

It's a smokescreen, looking busy doing fuck all.

 

Office workers & teachers have done that for years!

MK (not for the first time) missed my point.

250k for wi-fi is not a pressing concern, irrespective of who the fuck pays for it.

 

I get 4G in the ground, have shitloads of data. Why provide wifi for peasants on shit phones/phone contracts?

 

If the ST want to spend 250k, do it on something useful.

I can not get a signal in ground. And am on a contract with O2.

 

I would think if there is £250k knocking about there is better use for the money than letting me see how my fantasy team is doing.

Surel there's far more important things the ST should be concerned about than wifi.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by waffer cup 07

Wifi. We are there for footie not redtube

Wifi. We are there for footie not redtube

Speak for yourself

Of course it is difficult to hold owners to account however the Trust has a better chance of doing that than having no Trust. What's your alternative? I'd guess none.

 

So even the voice of the ST on here CAN'T come up with a single example of how the ST have held the 'club owners to account' since they were formed prior to Holdsworth/Anderson becoming the club owners.

 

If they can't actually do what they keep saying - then why persistently keep saying it for then?   Izza even repeating it TWICE in the extremely tame interview he had the other day!

 

It is an empty pledge by the ST that they (nor anyone else) can deliver on and the sooner they drop this stance the better it will be for everyone including themselves.

So even the voice of the ST on here CAN'T come up with a single example of how the ST have held the 'club owners to account' since they were formed prior to Holdsworth/Anderson becoming the club owners.

 

If they can't actually do what they keep saying - then why persistently keep saying it for then? Izza even repeating it TWICE in the extremely tame interview he had the other day!

 

It is an empty pledge by the ST that they (nor anyone else) can deliver on and the sooner they drop this stance the better it will be for everyone including themselves.

Still waiting to hear what you bring to the table that helps the club think I'll be long time waiting for your answer.

Still waiting to hear what you bring to the table that helps the club think I'll be long time waiting for your answer.

 

You see that is your problem, you attack the messenger whilst completely ignoring the message.

 

I've not set myself up to be the voice of the fans, to hold the owners to account, or to attempt to own the club - all of which the ST has.

 

I've not blocked or banned people for holding different views to myself, whilst the current Chair of the ST has done exactly that to me - so much for openness, honesty and transparency from the very head of the organisation that proclaims that is what it wants from others.

 

Instead of childishly trying too put me down for being to old and frail to attend anymore - it really doesn't do yourself any favours in other peoples eyes - why don't you instead engage brain and think whether the point I've made is valid or not?

 

An organisation that persistently makes aggressive statements such as 'holding the owner to account' whilst never actually having once done so is clearly not doing what it purports itself to be doing!

 

It is undermining its own credibility by not being able to deliver on something it trumpets the loudest about!.

 

And for what purpose keep saying it - simply to look macho?

 

It must certainly antagonise the owner, can not be delivered on and is deliberately misleading to those who believe that is what the ST have been doing all this time.

 

How can this be good for the ST?

 

Surely even you can see that it would be better if the ST stopped saying it - if for no other reason than they CAN'T actually 'hold the owner to account'?

You see that is your problem, you attack the messenger whilst completely ignoring the message.

 

I've not set myself up to be the voice of the fans, to hold the owners to account, or to attempt to own the club - all of which the ST has.

 

I've not blocked or banned people for holding different views to myself, whilst the current Chair of the ST has done exactly that to me - so much for openness, honesty and transparency from the very head of the organisation that proclaims that is what it wants from others.

 

Instead of childishly trying too put me down for being to old and frail to attend anymore - it really doesn't do yourself any favours in other peoples eyes - why don't you instead engage brain and think whether the point I've made is valid or not?

 

An organisation that persistently makes aggressive statements such as 'holding the owner to account' whilst never actually having once done so is clearly not doing what it purports itself to be doing!

 

It is undermining its own credibility by not being able to deliver on something it trumpets the loudest about!.

 

And for what purpose keep saying it - simply to look macho?

 

It must certainly antagonise the owner, can not be delivered on and is deliberately misleading to those who believe that is what the ST have been doing all this time.

 

How can this be good for the ST?

 

Surely even you can see that it would be better if the ST stopped saying it - if for no other reason than they CAN'T actually 'hold the owner to account'?

I'm not attacking a messenger you've no message to deliver as far as I can see just your own anti trust stance, time will tell if KA needs to be held accountable and if the Trust have the where withall to do that in the meantime they are in dialogue and attempting to help the club in any small way that can, still you've completely refused to say what you have done to help the club.

 

I'm sorry for your ill health however I'm not to know that all I see is a very negative view of the Trust and you offer little else from where I'm looking. Good luck in the future I hope your health improves.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

ST election timetable as follows :

 

27th Oct 2017 : Must be registered as a member by this date to stand for election.

 

30th Oct 2017: Open nominations to Electoral Reform Service from this date.

 

13th Nov 2017: Registration closes for members to vote.

 

20th Nov 2017: close of nominations (5pm)

 

27th Nov 2017: Issue of ballot packs & open vote.

 

08th Dec 2017: Voting closes.

 

15th Dec 2017: Results announced.

 

If this info has been posted elsewhere on here ,apologies.

 

The proposed structure is seven 'board' members.

Three incumbents will remain.

Four positions are up for grabs.

 

Don't shoot the messenger!

Glad you have posted that

 

Aye one more to step down leaving 3

 

4 places available

 

If anybody on here decides to stand, let us know

Who are the current 4

 

Izza

Smith

Tetlow

One more?

 

If anybody on here decides to stand, let us know

 

I'd vote for Mounts or Carlos

I'd vote for anybody who stood on a 'let's park it' ticket

What's maggie tetlows history?

Been a fan for 89 years

 

Apparently

Glad you have posted that

 

Aye one more to step down leaving 3

 

4 places available

 

If anybody on here decides to stand, let us know

 

 

If anyone decided to stand, they'd be mental to publicise on here!

Who are the current 4

 

Izza

Smith

Tetlow

One more?

Plus

 

Terence Rigby who I've not met also one of the board will step down but can immediately put themselves back up for the board.

Edited October 23, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

Cheers

 

And no problem with that

 

Tbh I'd have more time for em if they all had the bollocks to resign and take their chances of re election