Last I heard, it was court tomorrow

 

ST and Lies reported 3, including Heathcotes mob

 

KA said that was old news, leaving 2

 

 

Now, I can see HMRC is definitely a club issue,but the other is Sport Shield

 

If we assume KA can deal with HMRC debt - I'd have been happier if he had sorted that one already, tbf- that 'just' leaves SS and blumarble

 

If the court agrees to wind up SS, do we know what that means and also the impact on BWFC

Edited May 21, 20179 yr by Casino

Why would they start acknowledging expressions of dissatisfaction now?

The usual suspects are ballooning about on twitter. Anderson is an 'asset stripper' apparently. Clearly they don't understand what an asset stripper is.

The trust is run and influenced by people who don't like rich folk, don't like our football club being privately owned and don't like Ken Anderson. Every single thing the trust does is an attempt to undermine Ken and the club. I suggest every trust member who is unhappy, immediately emails and asks for their membership to be revoked. Ideally making such a move public knowledge too. The only way we can have an effective trust is if every single person involved in setting up and running it thus far, is not involved in any way at all in the future.

Slight flaw in your cunning plan is if you revoke your membership you don't get a say same as if your not a member, that's why I say join get your view heard and try to get that view represented either by the board or vote a board member in who shares your view,

Yep. When?

in case you missed the previous post or didn't click the link

 

in case you missed the previous post or didn't click the link

 

The picture actually adds to the credibility of the Trust !

Why? Do they do homeless outreach?

Why? Do they do homeless outreach?

Suitability of man whose child has turned out like that to be able to look after a football club.

It probably has been mentioned ages ago but does the ST have some formal status, legal position or whatever to be the only ST?

 

As in could another group get together, have proper elections wanting to work with the club and then call themselves the ST?

 

Or does it become people's front of judea type/judean peoples front type naming?

It probably has been mentioned ages ago but does the ST have some formal status, legal position or whatever to be the only ST?

 

As in could another group get together, have proper elections wanting to work with the club and then call themselves the ST?

 

Or does it become people's front of judea type/judean peoples front type naming?

It was mentioned that to set up the Trust had to go through some type of process.

 

I assume that having set themselves up and having rules around elections regular meeting and votes on key issues. If they do not comply they can be closed down.

 

The irony of them complaining that KA had not got us out of the embargo whilst not meeting their own compliance should not be ignored.

 

Bit like me posting on here at this time whilst complaining I have too much work to do.

Elections are on the back burner due to AVC matters (official speak)

(I emailed the trust.)

All trust members need to email the trust to put the cart before the horse & remind them they have no mandate to straggle their high horse on

AVC matters, too important for a non mandated position.

Elections are on the back burner due to AVC matters (official speak)

(I emailed the trust.)

All trust members need to email the trust to put the cart before the horse & remind them they have no mandate to straggle their high horse on

AVC matters, too important for a non mandated position.

As some on here know I've had some input via steering group for the Trust and I have expressed my opinion over the last week that the members should be given a vote on the AVC situation one or 2 have agreed with me however the board feel they have the mandate from previous questionnaires to the members. I felt that the situation had changed given KA request for the Trust to support him in removal of the ACV and thus members should be asked to vote. I still feel the ACV should be upheld but see no reason why members weren't given second chance to vote to strengthen that mandate.

Edited September 22, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

Do you feel that's a justified response, or a bag of bollocks?

 

Just wondering what the next step would be if you didn't believe them.

I asked the question to Supporters Direct about having multiple Trusts and although they were a bit vague it very much came across that you can have mutliple supporters trusts but Supporters Direct will only help one to get themselves set up as a legal entity, sort of first up best dressed maybe ?

The ST are becoming a laughing stock. Sure the SA are full of flask and sandwich brigade but at least they have the best interests of the club at heart and have been around for years.

 

I give the ST 2 more years max unless they drastically change course. They need a bigger U turn than the mad dwarf from North Korea to keep any sort of relevance amongst many fans

As some on here know I've had some input via steering group for the Trust and I have expressed my opinion over the last week that the members should be given a vote on the AVC situation one or 2 have agreed with me however the board feel they have the mandate from previous questionnaires to the members. I felt that the situation had changed given KA request for the Trust to support him in removal of the ACV and thus members should be asked to vote. I still feel the ACV should be upheld but see no reason why members weren't given second chance to vote to strengthen that mandate.

I'm fully behind another vote and if the membership votes for keeping the ACV in place then the trust should press on. However by not having another vote it snacks of them in charge thinking they know best.

 

Mounts given your reasoned support of the trust because of your active dialogue, can you see how the trust comes across in the negative and appear to be going against everything a trust should ideally be? They are coming across as not a representation of the supporters (without a vote) but a vehicle for those in charge to air their grievances/views with a little more weight than they would previously had.

Edited September 22, 20178 yr by SalfordOriginal

in case you missed the previous post or didn't click the link

 

Put more into the club by buying that trackie than 'johnny nob head' who stopped going under Megson to watch the game in the fFlying Flute on dodgy tele and probably still thinks Gartside is to blame for us not buying anyone decent in the summer transfer window.

who's on with a "TRUST OUT" banner?

As some on here know I've had some input via steering group for the Trust and I have expressed my opinion over the last week that the members should be given a vote on the AVC situation one or 2 have agreed with me however the board feel they have the mandate from previous questionnaires to the members. I felt that the situation had changed given KA request for the Trust to support him in removal of the ACV and thus members should be asked to vote. I still feel the ACV should be upheld but see no reason why members weren't given second chance to vote to strengthen that mandate.

I am a non active member of the ST, but surely filling in a questionairre doesnt give a mandate ???

One Survey Monkey does not a mandate make.

I got the email but when opened no survey.

I'm fully behind another vote and if the membership votes for keeping the ACV in place then the trust should press on. However by not having another vote it snacks of them in charge thinking they know best.

 

Mounts given your reasoned support of the trust because of your active dialogue, can you see how the trust comes across in the negative and appear to be going against everything a trust should ideally be? They are coming across as not a representation of the supporters (without a vote) but a vehicle for those in charge to air their grievances/views with a little more weight than they would previously had.

 

In terms of a voice, even as a simple outsider (and trust member) I've offered them the chance to use LOV as an outlet - or at least to come on the podcast and debate the current state of affairs, but every email has gone unanswered. I find it really hard to back them at the moment which is a shame as I really want it to be what Portsmouth have - but it's a million miles from that at the minute.

In terms of a voice, even as a simple outsider (and trust member) I've offered them the chance to use LOV as an outlet - or at least to come on the podcast and debate the current state of affairs, but every email has gone unanswered. I find it really hard to back them at the moment which is a shame as I really want it to be what Portsmouth have - but it's a million miles from that at the minute.

 

I tried to listen to that podcast the other night. Whose idea was it to pan the mic's left and right? Atrocious decision. Makes it almost unlistenable.

I'm fully behind another vote and if the membership votes for keeping the ACV in place then the trust should press on. However by not having another vote it snacks of them in charge thinking they know best.

 

Mounts given your reasoned support of the trust because of your active dialogue, can you see how the trust comes across in the negative and appear to be going against everything a trust should ideally be? They are coming across as not a representation of the supporters (without a vote) but a vehicle for those in charge to air their grievances/views with a little more weight than they would previously had.

Another vote? Didn't think there'd been any votes for anything at all ever

I complained by e-mail o 29 June that they were not keeping me informed.

Got a reply asking for a phone number, which I supplied.

Still waiting for a call.

I tried to listen to that podcast the other night. Whose idea was it to pan the mic's left and right? Atrocious decision. Makes it almost unlistenable.

 

I've no idea what that means, but I'll pass the feedback on