| New chairman stands down 11:02 - Nov 22 with 25256 views | biggar |
Just had email saying new chairman has stood down. |  | | |  |
| New chairman stands down on 18:27 - Nov 22 with 1610 views | jackportis |
Reluctant.... he should be on the pitch. |  |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:31 - Nov 22 with 1592 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 18:11 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Just to clarify one thing - I never said that I had been outvoted on whether the deal should come back to the members. To the best of my knowledge, there was no argument with that.
I resigned because I didn't feel we should be continuing to negotiate with the Yanks after they had attempted to amend the terms and that those negotiations were being allowed to adversely affect the ability of the Trust Board to communicate with the members. |
Effectively you were Matt. You believed the terms had already changed and the majority didn't believe the same.
That's why I asked the question I did of Will. Because promising to come back to members if there is a change whilst refusing to accept when a change happens is pretty easy all in all.
But I know what you mean, so thanks for the clarification. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:32 - Nov 22 with 1579 views | Neath_Jack |
| New chairman stands down on 18:24 - Nov 22 by MattG |
There's nothing to stop people putting whatever they want in their Personal Statement - never has been, to my knowledge - and the vote is, well, just a vote.
I benefited twice from the co-option process, on both occasions after having unsuccessfully stood for election. If the existing Board hadn't wanted me involved, they could have easily chosen someone else, particularly second time around when they would have been well aware of my views. |
Well, if they put a things in there which they think the members want to hear, then throw it in the bin once elected, hopefully they'd be jettisoned back out at the next election.
How can anyone vote for someone based on what school they went to and what their first Swans match was? That is why we have got what we've got.
We need to be told what potential members are bringing to the table and what direction they would like to take the Trust and club in.
Do you disagree with that? |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:34 - Nov 22 with 1572 views | TheResurrection |
| New chairman stands down on 15:26 - Nov 22 by Uxbridge |
I really didn’t want to get involved in this, largely for my own stress levels. Guess I have no choice. This’ll probably turn into a speech but I’ll just put everything I think in one thread and log off, if only in the interests of my sanity.
You know what Nick, and you’ll know this, I have absolutely no issue with you saying what you have been told from your sources (I don’t know who they are, but can pretty much guess given the subject matter, material covered and the lack of any other obvious suspects). We can debate the content, and I’ll get to that, but I’ve got no issue with that bit. I’ve got a problem with several other things though, and they’re not really problems with you but in general. Mainly the lack of any sort of critical analysis of your comments (which I’m sure we agree aren’t actually facts but someone’s views), the lack of the same courtesy given to Will when he came onto here to rebut, and the way he and other members of his family were commented upon.
I should probably declare something here. Will and I have butted heads many a time over the last few years and argued the toss over many things. We have different views on certain things. Ironically, he’s someone who had grasped that the Trust board needed to be a lot more proactive in terms of their personal engagement online, and his recent appearances on here had been part of that. Anyway, I digress, Will and I were often on differing ends of the argument. This irony is not lost on me.
However, there are things I know and there are things I can neither confirm or deny. I don’t know if Will had conversations with Nigel in an attempt to whip up support for a tilt at Chairman, but they both vehemently deny it. I’m not even sure if it’s even relevant if they did, but anyway. What I do know are two things — if this happened, nobody approached me about it or even mentioned it, and Phil was elected to the chair unopposed in both 2015 and 2017. Actually I know a third thing, Phil proposed Will to be vice chair. Read into that what you will. Between you, me and the lamppost, he was pretty much pressganged into the Chairman role due to that appointment. If any of us could have seen into the future, that’d have been a very different meeting. He didn’t stab me in the back to the best of my knowledge, although as a board member without portfolio that may be a moot point. I won’t mention the irony of people on PS disapproving of a coup when there are ones being openly planned here, but it did make my chuckle. Anyway, I couldn’t disprove something that I have no knowledge of, so there we are, but the evidence doesn’t really support any of it and I do wonder if Nick’s sources have their own axe’s to grind.
This whole Associate Director nonsense staggers me to be honest. It’s been answered plenty of times, occasionally by the same people saying that there’s no clarity. However, in the futile hope of putting this to bed, can someone please cut and paste this in the future. The AD position has been in the possession of the Trust for donkeys years, possibly from the beginning when Tenko was also conferred the same title as a sop. It means nothing in practice, they don’t attend board meetings or vote, and I doubt it has any legal standing. Anyway, point is the position is always held by a Trust board member, and I believe Will is the second holder of that title. Recently the Trust had some additional rights conferred onto it with the Trust now having the right to a second, non-voting, director being able to attend board meetings. That’s usually the AD, with Chair as backup Will didn’t have the role before he joined the Trust board, principally because it’s a position appointed by the Trust board. Allegations of conflict of interest on that basis are preposterous.
As Will himself mentioned, he attends the directors box on rota with Stu and Phil as the senior officers of the Trust, probably more than originally planned as Phil has his own thoughts on the situation. The Trust has a number of spaces (6 I think) it uses for various purposes (raffle prizes, volunteers who have performed tasks for the Trust etc), one of which being to get members of the Trust board into a position to express their views with the directors or officers of the club, or often opposition clubs. Now it’s true that Trust board attendees often have a +1, not always but often, it depends on capacity. Sometimes that’s because there’s the space, sometimes that’s because it’s a pretty lonely place without someone you can speak to, and sometimes it actually helps smooth things as other attendees would have their partners there too. Now we can debate whether the Trust should be in the directors box at all, and that’s something I’ve alternated my view on depending on how relations are, but the Trust has the right to its spaces there and I have no issue with those who think the Trust should be there. As I’ll no doubt be asked, I’ve been in there a few times over the last few years (4 I think, 2 league, 2 league cup), sometimes by myself, twice with someone else, one of those with the other half last Boxing Day. To go back to my earlier point, she got more out of Pearlman and his wife than I did, so she should probably be in there more than I should. I could mention who else was there that day, but that’ll move this away from where I want to go. Anyway, my point was, being accompanied by his wife is an unfair stick to beat Will with (as otherwise she’d be attending the game on her own), and to infer that it’s something to do with status is only ever somebody’s opinion, not fact, and nothing more than cheap gossip. If it’s a perk, it’s a crap one. Give me my seat in the East every day of the week.
As for his departure statement, entirely his prerogative I say. Not for me, or anyone else on the Trust board, to dictate what message he wanted in that, although I doubt there’s much dissention in the fundamental message of the statement. And this is the bit that always gets missed. Everyone involved with the Trust board is an actual real person, with feelings, thoughts, families etc. Thing is with the Trust, it takes over sometimes, especially the last 18 months and especially if you’re getting properly involved. It affects your families as they get dragged into it, for no other reason than it becomes a big part of your life. They’ll occasionally put their own heads above the parapet and give their own views. This is something I’ve personally had a fair bit of experience of in recent times, and it’s not fun for someone’s other half to see their partner attacked for the crime of expressing their view, especially if they get dragged into it. I’ve seen that first hand when my partner committed the cardinal sin of correcting some utter nonsense on the Facebook group. She got accused of all sorts and all of it utter nonsense which was easy to disprove. I know Will’s family faced similar issues when they commented online. A lot of it comes with the territory I know, but there has to be a line surely. Anyway, back to the statement, it is nothing more than heartfelt departure statement from someone who gave over a decade to the Trust board. He earned that right, and the statement should be taken at face value. I think a lot of it needed saying to be honest. If it affects your family, it isn’t worth it. End of.
And this is the bit where I really disliked what happened on Sunday. Things got very personal very quickly, and all off the back of some sensationalised allegations that, for the record, Will denied. Lines were crossed IMO in that thread that got locked in particular as all sorts of allegations were made and delight taken in joining the attack. I tell a lie, there was one post questioning the accuracy of the allegations. I expect little agreement on that point, but frankly I think you’re all wrong if you think that part was acceptable. Would that have happened face to face? Not a chance.
What happens next will be interesting. There’ll be clarity on the model rules situation in the next couple of days, although from the provisional details from the legal types I’ve seen I expect people are going to be disappointed on that score. Shaky has made most of the points I was going to make, which made me smile. There’ll also be further announcements on next steps, some detail on where we are with the Americans etc. There’s a general lack of clarity out there on that particular for various reasons, and that’s not helped. However, if I may address the position of Chairman for a moment. Firstly, the members electing a chairman makes no sense to me. The chair doesn’t have special powers, they get one vote (and occasionally a casting one). They don’t dictate Trust policy, as Phil found out. Secondly, I hope whoever is next in the hotseat (and no, it won’t be me for reasons which are well publicised although I’d probably add a few new ones after the last week), is given a fair crack.
Disagree with them all you want, disagree with the Trust board view all you want, I’ll often agree, but their views are as valid as anyone else’s. And this is the fundamental thing for me … everyone has the right to their own view. Don’t agree with it, fine no problem. I just wish those who disagreed with the view of the Trust board stood and tried to change that policy. There’s only 15 spaces, it wouldn’t take much to tilt the balance. You have 2 days left on that score. Personally, I want a Trust board that can argue both sides of the argument. Who could ever think that everyone agreeing would be a good thing? This episode is unlikely to make people jump up and stand, and anyone who does has my upmost respect. And that’s the thing … regardless of my views on certain things, I have respect for anyone who steps up, and I most definitely include Will in that. It’s a thankless task.
With perfect hindsight, we were always going to get to this position. Tensions are red hot, fans feel alienated, the Trust board haven’t helped themselves at times, myself included. Sunday was probably a perfect storm in that regard. Something like this was always going to happen. Doesn’t make it right though.
All I ask is this. Every action of the Trust is analysed in microscopic detail. Frequently overanalysed, often goes way down the wrong track, but that’s the job of every fan to do. Lots of the criticism is justified. However, the same action should also apply to everything else that comes up. Just because you agree with something or if it fits in with your worldview doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also put the same tests to that. Question everything, and I mean everything. Oh and taking things at face value and giving people the benefit of the doubt isn’t a bad place to start either. The Trust is trying to change and improve, but it’s got no chance of making that change in the way I, and I suspect most on here, want if people get written off the moment they step up, or the worst is automatically not only accepted but believed without any consideration. |
Not one "Hell....."
Better. 😉 |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:34 - Nov 22 with 1569 views | jackportis |
What a joke and what a bore. This is what happens when a trade unionist has got work to do. Someone needs to stand back from this whirl wind of a mess. Draw a line and move forward with purpose. Hold fellow share holders to account for strategy, aims and clear objectives. Someone to challenge all trust board with what value the bring. Some one to address the keyboard warriors and make things happen. I'm very sorry to say I'm unable to sort this utter tripe out. Big shame. | |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:35 - Nov 22 with 1556 views | Wingstandwood |
| New chairman stands down on 18:27 - Nov 22 by jackportis |
Reluctant.... he should be on the pitch. |
The quick wit and comedic-relief contribution from some individuals on here is why this forum is so riveting and hard to ignore and leave.
It can truly be the best form of escapism and medicine from life’s more depressing and stressful things. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:37 - Nov 22 with 1544 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:32 - Nov 22 by Neath_Jack |
Well, if they put a things in there which they think the members want to hear, then throw it in the bin once elected, hopefully they'd be jettisoned back out at the next election.
How can anyone vote for someone based on what school they went to and what their first Swans match was? That is why we have got what we've got.
We need to be told what potential members are bringing to the table and what direction they would like to take the Trust and club in.
Do you disagree with that? |
I don’t disagree with it. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:37 - Nov 22 with 1541 views | Oldjack |
| New chairman stands down on 18:24 - Nov 22 by Darran |
Yes but the other party pulled out on the night of the fans forum,I was there.
Go on then Einstein tell us all how the Trust could have stopped the individual shareholders from selling their shares to the Americans.
Off you go. |
time scale ,,the trust would have taken a really good look at the Yanks history and question every tiny detail of their past ,even asking the huge question ''How fuking much money are you gonna invest into our beloved club'' those bastards wanted to sell asap just in case we went down |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New chairman stands down on 18:38 - Nov 22 with 1537 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 18:31 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
Effectively you were Matt. You believed the terms had already changed and the majority didn't believe the same.
That's why I asked the question I did of Will. Because promising to come back to members if there is a change whilst refusing to accept when a change happens is pretty easy all in all.
But I know what you mean, so thanks for the clarification. |
Incorrect, sorry.
Everyone knew the terms had changed, the difference was that the majority wanted to continue trying to negotiate and I didn't. |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:39 - Nov 22 with 1526 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 18:26 - Nov 22 by Darran |
LIsa making things up.  |
Seriously Darran. F*** off.
It's not even remotely funny. It's pathetic. Stop trying to stir things up on here constantly. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:43 - Nov 22 with 1492 views | jackportis |
| New chairman stands down on 18:35 - Nov 22 by Wingstandwood |
The quick wit and comedic-relief contribution from some individuals on here is why this forum is so riveting and hard to ignore and leave.
It can truly be the best form of escapism and medicine from life’s more depressing and stressful things. |
jp appreciates the feedback | |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:43 - Nov 22 with 1491 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:39 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
Seriously Darran. F*** off.
It's not even remotely funny. It's pathetic. Stop trying to stir things up on here constantly. |
No I won’t. Good to see that you knew what he was thinking too. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:43 - Nov 22 with 1489 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 18:32 - Nov 22 by Neath_Jack |
Well, if they put a things in there which they think the members want to hear, then throw it in the bin once elected, hopefully they'd be jettisoned back out at the next election.
How can anyone vote for someone based on what school they went to and what their first Swans match was? That is why we have got what we've got.
We need to be told what potential members are bringing to the table and what direction they would like to take the Trust and club in.
Do you disagree with that? |
Not at all. My point was simply that there has never been anything stopping candidates doing just that. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 with 1475 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:37 - Nov 22 by Oldjack |
time scale ,,the trust would have taken a really good look at the Yanks history and question every tiny detail of their past ,even asking the huge question ''How fuking much money are you gonna invest into our beloved club'' those bastards wanted to sell asap just in case we went down |
Alan there was no way to stop the sale and on a side note there’s not much that’s come to light since has there? | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 with 1474 views | Neath_Jack |
| New chairman stands down on 18:43 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Not at all. My point was simply that there has never been anything stopping candidates doing just that. |
Stopping them doing what?
If you mean doing a little personal manifesto, then it should be compulsory, if they don't do one, then no chance of running in an election. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 with 1473 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 18:38 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Incorrect, sorry.
Everyone knew the terms had changed, the difference was that the majority wanted to continue trying to negotiate and I didn't. |
Right, well then I don't understand what the hell has gone on Matt.
In one post you say that everyone agreed that if there were changes the vote needed to happen again.
Now you say that everyone knew that there were changes.
I assume you mean that others wanted to continue with negotiations in case they changed back.
But you have said in an earlier post that you believe that trying to change the deal was a change in itself whatever happened afterwards, as it was a removal of good faith.
So everyone didn't agree with that did they? Because otherwise, by you saying that everyone agreed for a new vote if there were changes, there would be a bloody new vote.
Which is what I said. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:46 - Nov 22 with 1469 views | icecoldjack |
| New chairman stands down on 11:17 - Nov 22 by Darran |
I’m sorry but I still don’t get why so many seem intent on destroying the Trust but aren’t interested in destroying the people that sold the club to the Yanks.
Very strange to me and yes the Trust Have fuçked up and broken their own rules and if Will wasn’t eligible to be Trust Chairman because of those broken rules it’s tough shit.
Still don’t get it though. |
My take on things.
As you know full well, i've been a harsh critic of the running of the club for ages, namely Jenkins and Dineen, . and precisely from the appointment of Monk onwards, where decisions were made with arrogance not thought and with one eye on keeping the books in nice shape for a sale, i saw it then so did the ressurection and so did loads of other people, the trust did fook all and sat back, thats the moment they should have been taking a close look at things, but no, we had Hola instead !
They should have been reigning the fookers in instead of drinking with them and being pals . I pointed out this cushy conflict of interest yonks ago and so did many others, the trust is not fit for purpose plain and simple, it failed to do what it was set up to do and no fookin' way on this planet did nobody get a sniff of what the sellouts were up to either .
Huw and Co. sold out on the sly, but it was the trusts job to police them on the fans behalf not be mates with them.
If the trust knew nothing then what was the point in them? I totally agree that Jenkins and Co. should be getting the main pelters , they shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets here let alone attend matches and have all the trimmings, it's far too easy for them.
Apathy has ruled at the Liberty for a long time, it's also ruled the trust for far longer, the membership size gives an indicator of that. This was a fook up a long lazy time in the making, a lot of fans could see it though, it was harder to fook this up than to get it right but yet fooked up it got. |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:46 - Nov 22 with 1468 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:38 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Incorrect, sorry.
Everyone knew the terms had changed, the difference was that the majority wanted to continue trying to negotiate and I didn't. |
Top man Matt. I’m glad I nominated and voted for you. ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘ðŸ»ðŸ‘🻠| |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:48 - Nov 22 with 1461 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 by Neath_Jack |
Stopping them doing what?
If you mean doing a little personal manifesto, then it should be compulsory, if they don't do one, then no chance of running in an election. |
Correct. And I wouldn't object to it being compulsory. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:48 - Nov 22 with 1460 views | SgorioFruit |
Reluctant
Let me sum up a 5 page thread so not to waste any new readers time
The Trust are a shambles, a complete joke with no backbone,
End of discussion |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:49 - Nov 22 with 1458 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 18:43 - Nov 22 by Darran |
No I won’t. Good to see that you knew what he was thinking too. |
I don't claim to know what he was thinking.
I do claim to remember what he said in the past couple of days.
You're not clever enough to do this Darran. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:50 - Nov 22 with 1449 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:49 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't claim to know what he was thinking.
I do claim to remember what he said in the past couple of days.
You're not clever enough to do this Darran. |
You are physic. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:51 - Nov 22 with 1438 views | Neath_Jack |
| New chairman stands down on 18:50 - Nov 22 by Darran |
You are physic. |
She's whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Phil, Phil, look what the thick c*nt has written. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:57 - Nov 22 with 1407 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:51 - Nov 22 by Neath_Jack |
She's whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Phil, Phil, look what the thick c*nt has written. |
Whoosh. OFAH Butt. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:57 - Nov 22 with 1405 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
Right, well then I don't understand what the hell has gone on Matt.
In one post you say that everyone agreed that if there were changes the vote needed to happen again.
Now you say that everyone knew that there were changes.
I assume you mean that others wanted to continue with negotiations in case they changed back.
But you have said in an earlier post that you believe that trying to change the deal was a change in itself whatever happened afterwards, as it was a removal of good faith.
So everyone didn't agree with that did they? Because otherwise, by you saying that everyone agreed for a new vote if there were changes, there would be a bloody new vote.
Which is what I said. |
Everyone agreed that the terms presented by the Yanks were different to what had been communicated to members.
For me, this undermined the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks to such an extent that I felt we should pull out of the deal. Others believed that continued negotiation could lead to the terms reverting back to what was originally communicated.
Everyone agreed that if the terms of the deal were different then it would go back to the members. I suppose the slightly grey area is whether the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks should be considered as one of the "terms of the deal" even though it's not there in black and white.
For me, it should be treated the same, purely on the basis that it was presented positively during the Consultation (and rightly so at the time) and that could have influenced people's decision. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
