Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 153

Thread: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Avondale (Near Phoenix) Arizona, USA.
    Posts
    15,105

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    I think thats a rotten idea to suggest that I have no say because I dont currently belong to the trust. Not only are you insulting me, but your insulting a huge percentage of regular Exeter City followers. Irrespective of that, I'll repeat what I already said: In one post, I asked who are the four trust representatives on the club board. No confirmation was received so I put forward a valid point and reason: Are they there for ever and a day (like Tagg and the club directors) or does there come a time when four other people are drafted on by some means? I dont know the answer yet, but if they are permanent fixtures, it shouldn't be that way IMHO. It looks to me like RB's proposal takes care of that; which would be excellent, as it assures transparency and complacancy.

  2. #32

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    What I've said you have no say in, and it's all I've said you have no say in, is what the Trust spend their money on.
    I believe the four Trust representatives are Elaine Davis, Pete Holding, Paul Farley and the Trust chairman.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Avondale (Near Phoenix) Arizona, USA.
    Posts
    15,105

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    You wouldn't care to clear up my other question per chance, or am I asking too much?

    NB. My previous post should of course have ended with 'it assures transparency and avoids complacency'.

  4. #34

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    My understanding as a Trust member is this. No TB representative on the CB would remain in post if the TB voted to remove them. Trust members as a whole get to renew or not renew their continuation as a TB member every three years. It therefore follows that regardless of whether one of the four have the confidence of their TB colleagues, Trust members have the opportunity to remove them every three years. No question of "forever and a day"
    Please send any other questions to the Trust secretary whose contact details you'll readily find.

  5. #35
    Pete Martin (CTID)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    King's Landing
    Posts
    9,710

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteUSA View Post
    .......Are they there for ever and a day (like Tagg and the club directors) or does there come a time when four other people are drafted on by some means?
    Wrong again. They're not. They have to be periodically re-approved by the Trust Board if they want to carry on.

  6. #36
    ramone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    If i had to agree with you we would both be wrong !
    Posts
    2,790

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Martin (CTID) View Post
    Wrong again. They're not. They have to be periodically re-approved by the Trust Board if they want to carry on.
    Please don't bring facts into the argument lol.

  7. #37

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    Thanks everyone for all your comments, its given me plenty to think about.

    When I came up with this I saw it that candidates would be drawn form the TB only, and from reading people's comments regarding possible problems with opening it up to the wider membership I'm inclined to stick with my initial thoughts on this. In answer to some of the comments made, I have to say I agree with Dr Dave that this isn't the most important issue the Trust faces, with particular reference to the 75% shareholding issue, but as there appears to have been precious little movement on this in ten years, I personally have no idea how to draft a motion that stands any success of moving this forward and as with Dave's other issues he raised, maybe any motions would be better proposed and drafted by him. This issue does however follow on from the accountability issue that formed a large part of my reason for standing for election last year, which explains my reasoning for putting this forward now.

    As Matt P said, although we jointly stood on the 'accountability' ticket last year there was divergence in the opinions of the four of us as regards what that meant, so it will probably come as no surprise to Matt to hear that I disagree with pretty much everything he said in his post on this. My firm belief in bottom up government means that i believe the purpose of an executive is to execute the wishes of the membership rather than to lead, therefore the more direct the representation of the membership at the business end the better. (I can hear the outraged shrieks of the business community as I write!)

    I've certainly taken on board the cost implications and have emailed the Trust secretary to see if I can get an idea of the cost involved in running elections. As I said before though, this is concerning the Trust's principal duty and therefore unless the cost is significantly higher than I would guess at, I would still see it as a price worth paying, but I'll comment further when I get a reply from Graham Deasey.

    I'm not going to get into discussions about individual current Trust appointments as this isn't a witch hunt or time specific personal vendetta, but like my efforts last year its about ongoing democracy and good governance on behalf of the Trust's members and the football club, and to ensure that Trust representatives represent the will of the membership at all levels.

    I don't buy into the idea that anyone who doesn't go to the AGM but votes by proxy, votes without understanding the arguments of both sides, as I think the time and space limitations of AGMs make them dreadful forums for proper debate and if people are changing their minds based on five minutes discussion at an AGM they probably haven't given it enough thought. If everyone who voted by proxy turned up in person and joined the verbal debate, each motion would need a day for the process! However I accept that that is merely my opinion.

    I almost certainly will put this motion forward, if members don't like the idea they'll vote it down, if they vote it in but like the present office holders and want them to stay in place, they'll vote for them. All I want is for people to get what they vote for and get the chance to vote for what they want. I believe that proposed motions have to be submitted a minimum of one week before the AGM, so there is plenty of time on this. I hope everyone keeps posting about it.
    Last edited by Red Bill; 13 September 2017 at 14:02.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    living in the moment.
    Posts
    8,213

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    I was very surprised at Matt's position on proxy voting. Are we about to disenfranchise the many trust members who either live too far away or are simply not able to get to an AGM for any number of important and unalterable reasons? Nor do I buy into the limited idea that trust members really cannot make their minds up properly, regardless of how much information they are given, unless they attend in person. I'm sure Matt didn't intend it but that smacks of an arrogance to me that we, the great unwashed and uninitiated , need to be lead by a cogent argument as we are unable to analyse a written argument. Do I hear sirens singing? Stuff your ears up lads. It does make me wonder if there is any link between this and Matt's other position on equal representation which again has overtones of elitism for me. If you honestly believe trust members would put up with that I think a rude awakening is in store.
    Lastly can we try to get off PeteUSA's case? I feel he is not only being given short shrift when he asks a question but is being unnecessarily put down rather abruptly/rudely at times. Would this be the case if he asked same questions in person at a meeting?
    Last edited by geoffwp; 13 September 2017 at 16:44.

  9. #39

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    I am concerned that the Trust Board are somewhat arrogantly messing around with the interests of members with the shambles of organising the AGM this year. There is a set procedure and time scale laid down into the running of the election and date of the AGM. If the members of the TB responsible for it's implementation cannot adhere to it, they should fall on their swords and step down. The AGM has been put back from October to November but we still do not have a confirmed venue ! Yet the timescale for standing for office remains unchanged.

    Trust members from far afield who go to the trouble of arranging their visits to SJP in order to attend the meeting are being disenfranchised.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pining for a Devon country pub.
    Posts
    7,629

    Re: Trust AGM motion re Trust appointed directors

    I don't know much about these things but I do know if you put yourself up for election (and nobody is obligated to do so) and win, you have to fulfill your obligations competently and ethically. And it's no good criticising the public for asking questions, because as the Trust Board should monitor the club board then the fans must monitor the Trust board. Ever heard of democracy?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •