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

I can’t argue with any of that Ani.

OK.

 

You are totally blinkered on the subject. I am not as you early edited post said ‘up KAs arse’. My views on him or in this thread and I bet very close to your own.

 

The ST is as you say insurance if the really bad thing happens. People like Moonman come on here posting as though that is soon to happen and members of the ST seem to come pouring out of the woodwork at the slightest hint of trouble. But let’s find a comment from them and what a great job somebody has done getting Ameobi back for the season. If we manage to stay up that can only help our financial position and if we do Ameobi looks like being crucial to that so give KA some credit.

The ST are self appointed unelected and unrepresentative- Fact. Until they overcome those points they are nothing other than a nuisance it seems to people who are trying to move us forward.

I know you will not question my loyalty/ commitment to the club I would not question yours so why am I suddenly a whopper ?

So on to the ST itself. Let’s be very honest here whenever a committee or a Group is set up it attracts a certain type of person. That is not knock them but it does. They are simply not the type of people that I like or get on with so I have no interest in getting involved.

You put your faith in this group of people as insurance. I genuinely feel that members of the Trust will only be happy if something goes wrong. This constant ‘you do not know what I know’ posting is frankly pathetic.

The ST and KA it seems are unlikely to work together well. So which do I think is more likely to secure the club the best future ? For all my reservations about KA I would have to say him. That is based on what he has achieved compared to what the ST have delivered. If that makes me a whopper I can live with that.

 

As for you, if you need paying in again at Forest this year you know I will be there for you sweet cheeks ????????????

 

I'm not really too concerned who's running the Trust at the moment im sure theres bound to be folk involved who I would agree with and who I would not agree with however I respect them for the fact that they are commited to put in the hard work without getting credit and in many cases outright criticism, the trust is a vehicle to protect the club if needed and I'm sure if needed it will be used as something that all fans can rally round. Regarding KA he's doing fantastic job hope he keeps us up and makes a few bob if he does sell us but not at the expense of our clubs future, folk like moon man who's diatribe is to just diss ken get short shrift from me, our positions are not poles apart however we will have to disagree on the need for a Trust. If ever you needed help as per I did at Nottingham for id be first to step up and help you, your loyalty is not in doubt and never ever up for discussion.

Can’t argue with any of the response either

You are right Sluffy...some people do have short memories...or suffer selectivereading disorder... 

 

Thankfully I suffer from neither.

 

Thank you for once again posting up your bluster on this matter but what you have said simply doesn't match the facts.

 

Your fellow Board Member Terence Rigby even stated in your public gathering that Trevor Birch approached the ST to request them to seek Preferred Bidder Status - and it was the ST (and NOT some consortium headed by the ST) that sought this.

 

If you had been given approval for this and went on to successfully own the club (funded from those in the consortium you talk about) it would be the ST's name on the documentation of ownership - and not the name of the consortium financial backers.

 

No doubt they would have all the required checks and balances to safeguard their investment - but never the less their names (or company names) would not be shown as being as senior/joint/part owners of the club.

 

On paper at least the ST would own the club.

 

And as Board members of the ST you would of course be in an extremely strong position to directly affect the running of the club and hotel.

 

If this position ever did occur it would obviously have brought about some very interesting questions about the independence of the ST itself.

 

How could a public non profit making body such as the ST be in effect answerable to (as you state yourself) two significant financial backers who are presumably owners of companies who probably are themselves answerable to their own shareholders?

 

I could foresee massive potential conflicts of interests in such a set up - and I'm sure it would also be in conflict with your own bodies guidance on the governance of ST's.

 

I assume Eddie Davies clearly didn't want to have anything at all to do with such shenanigans (even though it was his own agent Birch who asked you to seek Preferred Bidder status).

 

It all seems very underhanded and dodgy to me.

 

If there ever was a consortium why didn't they simply put themselves forward as such (with the ST as leading it) rather than be all mysterious and hiding in the shadows?

 

Hardly fits in at all with your own ST's stated credo of being open, honest and transparent.

 

Does it?

What's your philosophy (bwfc only) sluffy, in as few words as possible.

 

I can't see where your coming from, unlike most posters on here.

What's your philosophy (bwfc only) sluffy, in as few words as possible.

 

I can't see where your coming from, unlike most posters on here.

 

Best to put him on ignore, saves reading same post in a number of different guises over and over and over again.

What's your philosophy (bwfc only) sluffy, in as few words as possible.

 

I can't see where your coming from, unlike most posters on here.

 

If you look in the dictionary for the definition of the word 'philosophy' you will find two meanings.

 

The first is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, and the second a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

 

In essence the one word the one word can mean two distinctly different things - basically thinking with your head (fact based) or with your heart (emotional and impulsive but not necessarily realistic or practical).

 

This I think neatly shows the huge divide between those who view the ST as being the best thing since sliced bread (such as Mounts) and those of us who see the ST for what it really is - simply a body designed to be available to hand a club to when it as finally run out of assets and resources, in order to save it from extinction.

 

Bolton are a long way yet from running out of assets and resources and so the ST actions and bluster until that point are no more than being the empty words and actions of a paper tiger at best or a platform for egocentrics with agendas of their own and not compatible with those of the current owner at worse.

 

ST's carry no authority what-so-ever - hence my highlighting in an earlier post about how they are completely impotent they are at doing anything at all to prevent the likes of the Oystens of this world doing whatever they want to the club they own - providing of course they do it within the law.

 

Once people can finally grasp the concept that ST's are meaningless until a club becomes worthless to everyone else - when it ultimately has nothing left that anyone wants other than diehard fans wishing to save the club for the community, then we will at last be on the same page together.

 

Until that time though we will simply have those with an axe to grind against the current owner of the club at the time, simply coming together to undermine them and seek (unsuccessfully) to get them out.

 

Their actions will be to make life as difficult as they possibly can make it for the current owner - and as a direct consequence the club itself.

 

Anderson may well be the Devil incarnate to those ardent supporters of the ST believe he is BUT up to now he's done nothing to harm the club as he has seemingly gone about his business in a hard nosed way, which the circumstances he inherited from Davies demanded were required in order for the club to be financially turned around.

 

My philosophy, which you asked the question of me, is to deal in facts and reality and not attitudes and emotions.

 

I am now seventh decade (frightening when you think about it) of being a Wanderers supporter, being born and raised in Bolton.

 

I like everyone else on here only want the best for the club but a ST acting like a lynching mob just to get the owner out simply because they don't trust/like him is not helping the club in any way and is based solely on emotions and conjecture and not one single fact to even suggest he's been a bad owner so far.

 

If the ST has any hard evidence of anything untoward happening to the club under Anderson's ownership then present it to the footballing governing body or the police, if not then let withdraw their innuendo and obvious hatred of him.

 

As three of the ST's Board are not required to stand down and seek re-election and the fourth who is, will probably not be opposed (I can't imagine there will be any significant interest for many people to stand for election - can you?), then I see nothing changing in the ST's anti-Anderson stance continuing for the next twelve months, or until he finds a buyer - whichever being the sooner.

 

The ST of course could round up their high net worth individuals, institutions and consortium associates and buy the club - Anderson wants to sell it and has named his price - but of course we all know that won't happen - don't we!

 

So I believe we will still be left with a currently toxic ST continually acting in a manner to remove Anderson from club ownership basing their actions on nothing more than not liking the man.

 

How can that be good for the club we all support?

 

The ST should stick to the one and only duty it was created for and not to act in a way to unstable club owners they don't like, such have they have pretty much done since their inception.  Such actions are detrimental and harmful to the club itself.

 

I prefer to deal with facts than emotional 'what if's'.

 

Does that answer your question?

Any chance of a long winded explanation?

Tl;dr.

Could have done without the introduction to modern philosophy & by god you can certainly churn it out.

However I did ask.

Your postion is now clear to me & as far as I can interpret your dissitation you see the ST as the vehicle of last resort which is my belief also .

Where we part company is the personalised stuff & not been a member of the twitterati I dont have knowledge of the ST board members, anyway thanks for your reply.

I've been away for a week or so and as such haven't read the last 6 pages of this, so humour me please.

 

To stand for the ST election, you need to be an existing paying member and have proposals behind you from a number of other such members and then you have to go to a meet the candidates evening at a time and lace predetermined by those already running the thing ie at a time that suits them best.

 

And you wonder why there's so much fucking apathy towards getting involved.

 

Getting my American visa will be easier than this.

Only 3 nominations received, so all 3are deemed elected without ballot.

 

At 27/10/17 there were 2,487 members.

 

At 13/11/17 there were 2,487 members.

 

The team are gaining points more quickly than the Trust is gaining members.

 

The 3 new board members are: Paul Brown, Simon Nightingale and Michael Smith, who join:

 

Daniel Izza, Terence Rigby and Maggie Tetlow.

Only 3 nominations received, so all 3are deemed elected without ballot.

 

At 27/10/17 there were 2,487 members.

 

At 13/11/17 there were 2,487 members.

 

The team are gaining points more quickly than the Trust is gaining members.

 

The 3 new board members are: Paul Brown, Simon Nightingale and Michael Smith, who join:

 

Daniel Izza, Terence Rigby and Maggie Tetlow.

Is Simon nightingale related to Clive?

2487 members....brill. hopefully they will do something to appeal to the fans, as that is far too low a number to imply they are "speaking for the fans"

Yes there were a quite a few hurdles to jump before you could manage a nomination , probably too many & you probably needed to sell yourself in corporate speak embellishing all your techno knowledge with your interpersonnel skills etc .......yawn

Anyway looks like a gang of six.

 

My support for the ST is not unconditional unlike my support for the Wanderers.

STATEMENT FROM THE ELECTION MANAGEMENT GROUP As independent chair of the BWFCST Election Management Group, I, Dave Cookson, wish to update BWFCST Members as follows:

1. In line with the previously published election timeline, the number of members eligible to stand as candidates for election as at the close of registration on 27 October 2017 was 2,487.

2. The number of members eligible to vote in the election as at the close of registration on 13 November 2017 was 2,487.

3. As per confirmation received from the independent election administrating company, Electoral Reform Services, at the close of nominations at 5pm on Monday 20 November 2017, the following three people had put themselves forward as candidates for the election process: Paul Brown Simon Nightingale Michael Smith

4. As the number of board positions available for election (four) have not been reached, in line with the BWFCST Election Policy (refer to item 8.3) and the BWFCST Model Rules (refer to item 56), there is no requirement for a ballot process to be undertaken and the three members noted above are deemed to be duly elected and will now join the three retained board members (Daniel Izza, Terence Rigby and Maggie Tetlow) and form the BWFCST Board of Directors.

5. The above procedure has been discussed and agreed with Supporters Direct as being valid and fully in accordance with the published BWFCST Election Policy and Model Rules.

6. The Candidate Statements provided by each of the above will be posted on the BWFCST website.

Dave Cookson Dave Cookson Independent Chair – BWFCST Election Management Group 23 Nov 2017

 

http://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t15019p120-latest-statement-from-the-st#352507

 

 

 

 

I'm not here to gloat but this is absolutely no surprise at all to me.

 

Once again what we are told by the ST (Mike Smith) about membership bears no relationship to the independent Election Officers factual statement of those eligible to vote!

 

Once again there was not enough interest to even have enough people to stand to fill all the vacancies - four seats on the ST Board available - only three names put forward.

 

Once again the ST Board will be appointed without a single member having the opportunity to vote.  

 

And Once again those who have led the ST from the beginning will again make up the majority on the ST's Board.

 

 

Nothing at all as changed.

 

Did anyone really believed it would?

 

STATEMENT FROM THE ELECTION MANAGEMENT GROUP As independent chair of the BWFCST Election Management Group, I, Dave Cookson, wish to update BWFCST Members as follows:

1. In line with the previously published election timeline, the number of members eligible to stand as candidates for election as at the close of registration on 27 October 2017 was 2,487.

2. The number of members eligible to vote in the election as at the close of registration on 13 November 2017 was 2,487.

3. As per confirmation received from the independent election administrating company, Electoral Reform Services, at the close of nominations at 5pm on Monday 20 November 2017, the following three people had put themselves forward as candidates for the election process: Paul Brown Simon Nightingale Michael Smith

4. As the number of board positions available for election (four) have not been reached, in line with the BWFCST Election Policy (refer to item 8.3) and the BWFCST Model Rules (refer to item 56), there is no requirement for a ballot process to be undertaken and the three members noted above are deemed to be duly elected and will now join the three retained board members (Daniel Izza, Terence Rigby and Maggie Tetlow) and form the BWFCST Board of Directors.

5. The above procedure has been discussed and agreed with Supporters Direct as being valid and fully in accordance with the published BWFCST Election Policy and Model Rules.

6. The Candidate Statements provided by each of the above will be posted on the BWFCST website.

Dave Cookson Dave Cookson Independent Chair – BWFCST Election Management Group 23 Nov 2017

 

http://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t15019p120-latest-statement-from-the-st#352507

 

 

 

 

I'm not here to gloat but this is absolutely no surprise at all to me.

 

Once again what we are told by the ST (Mike Smith) about membership bears no relationship to the independent Election Officers factual statement of those eligible to vote!

 

Once again there was not enough interest to even have enough people to stand to fill all the vacancies - four seats on the ST Board available - only three names put forward.

 

Once again the ST Board will be appointed without a single member having the opportunity to vote.  

 

And Once again those who have led the ST from the beginning will again make up the majority on the ST's Board.

 

 

Nothing at all as changed.

 

Did anyone really believed it would?

 

 

 

With due respect, Sluffoire, I really don't care

And neither does anybody else.

 

The ST is irrelevant, the sooner they jack it in the better

Also reflected in the number of applicants. As there were too few then makes sense for a non vote.

Let them get on with it.

Not interested nor involved so I'll leave them to it.

With due respect, Sluffoire, I really don't care

 

Fair enough G, I don't think many do anymore.

 

I even note that the numbers of those eligible to vote have fallen from their last election to this one - even though Smith stated on here that they had loads of new members this year - so it seems plenty have now given up on them.

 

And Once again those who have led the ST from the beginning will again make up the majority on the ST's Board.

 How the fuck do the 3 existing members outnumber the 3 new members to make up the majority?

Cos one of the new ones is an old one

Simon Nightingale sounds like he's given them loads in the past, he won't last.

Two thoughts

 

1) Only 2500 people care enough about the Whites to join the ST

2) The ST is a non-entity and doesn't represent the majority of Whites supporters.

 

I know which I think.

Cos one of the new ones is an old one

Gotcha. Ta.