Trust agm motion

[BigBanker]

This thread is a perfect example - a motion was put to the AGM - it was voted through - the Trust Board acted on the motion - and the Club Board has (reportedly) acted on what the Trust Board instructed them to do.

Really? Where?

The only confirmation I've seen is that the Trust has asked the Club to serve notice.

 

[Jason H]

Really? Where?

The only confirmation I've seen is that the Trust has asked the Club to serve notice.

I think there was a story on BBC radio that gave the (mistaken?) impression that the club had acted on the edict from the motion. Has been discussed in this thread (obviously I accept it's difficult to keep up with every post in a thread running to 840+ posts and counting!).

 

[BigBanker]

I think there was a story on BBC radio that gave the (mistaken?) impression that the club had acted on the edict from the motion. Has been discussed in this thread (obviously I accept it's difficult to keep up with every post in a thread running to 840+ posts and counting!).

Yes, I've seen that, but there's been no actual confirmation from either the Trust or the Club that this is the case (even when directly asked), hence the cynicism.

For what it's worth, I really don't think the demand to serve notice has been acted upon. I may be wrong, but if I am, why don't the Trust/Club confirm the same to shut the likes of me up?

 

[paperclip]

Well there's one question for Martin Weiler at the fans forum on Monday, surely?!

 

[CREDYGRECIAN]

It's time we came up with 10 questions we really want answering

Sums - given your position as club mascot and true club supporter would you ask these on exewebs behalf at the forum ?

Get your questions in and perhaps we could pick the best 10

 

[Terryhall]

Yes, I've seen that, but there's been no actual confirmation from either the Trust or the Club that this is the case (even when directly asked), hence the cynicism.

For what it's worth, I really don't think the demand to serve notice has been acted upon. I may be wrong, but if I am, why don't the Trust/Club confirm the same to shut the likes of me up?

1. Have you emailed to ask, and if so what answer did you get?

2. The timeline stated on the motion was 4 weeks from the date of the AGM. By my count that means this week. Perhaps that is why there is not yet anything official. (Just presenting an alternative theory to the conspiracies)

 

[dontpassback]

Heres one question,out of these 3 items which one has priority, 1st team ,youth set up,or training facilities.?

 

[BigBanker]

1. Have you emailed to ask, and if so what answer did you get?

2. The timeline stated on the motion was 4 weeks from the date of the AGM. By my count that means this week. Perhaps that is why there is not yet anything official. (Just presenting an alternative theory to the conspiracies)

1. Yep - was told that confidentiality prevents them from confirming.
2. Fair enough, perhaps I should show some patience.

 

[IndoMike]

1. Yep - was told that confidentiality prevents them from confirming.
2. Fair enough, perhaps I should show some patience.

Why should it be confidential? Is Tisdale gonna sue if the club announces his roller has been called in? The club constantly leaves itself open to suspicion, so of course there is always speculation from the fans. The likes of Lezzy and others are always saying that we shouldn't comment if we don't know the facts. Since we are never given any facts, i guess it would be convenient for some if we just shut up.
Tired of all the sneakiness, obfuscation, and total lack of transparency. What are they afraid of?

 

[tonykellowfan]

If nobody is actually trying to remove Tisdale then we are destined to continue the club's slide.

Is it taken as read then that the Trust Board are happy for Tisdale to continue as manager and do not wish to remove him?

If so then we are totally fooked, if the trust members voted in a Trust Board that wanted to continue with Tisdale.