The Pitchfork Fund.

[RaeUK]

... I'd far rather give money to a fund devoted to getting a slate of candidates capable of delivering real change ...

As touched on in posts #33 and #35? To be fair, Egg, you sound like just the person we need on the BoS. Will you be standing?

 

[Egg]

But, surely to God, the BoS already realises that people are disenchanted and questioning the direction of the club under Trust ownership?! If it takes an initiative such as this to make them realise that then we're in a worse mess than I thought.

Like you, I think it's great that there are people such as Rae prepared to get off their arses and do something positive - and I'm not meaning to knock that - but, for the life of me, I can't see how this is going to arrest the current malaise.

I ought also to add, I have a lot of time for individuals on the boards of both club and Trust but, like others, I think a new impetus is needed.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

I'd far rather give money to a fund devoted to getting a slate of candidates capable of delivering real change elected to the BoS than to one which does little or nothing to address the underlying issues.

One of the underlying issues - and an important one, as it underpins our very existence - is that the on field costs are being pared to the bone with little or no indication that off-field costs are being similarly dealt with. Call me blinkered if you like, but I cannot see any significant disadvantages in an effort by supporters to bypass that element and increase income for that part of the club that really matters, without resorting to lengthy and convoluted Trust election (and other) procedures.

This would be an entirely voluntary commitment by fans (Trust members or otherwise) with no compulsion and no press-ganging.

In essence, it is little different to the 1931 fund and no-one has criticised that (other than, perhaps, it's lack of visible success )

 

[Grecian_Jay]

Nice disclaimer at the end there Egg. Egg is precisely the type of person that isn't needed.

 

[RaeUK]

Watching the recent Trust Forum live and online, I'm afraid I was left with the distinct impression that the Trust had no real idea just how disenchanted current and abstaining potential members are. It was one of the things in the back of my mind as I pondered the Pitchforks.

 

[Egg]

Either we are all, as in exeweb, wrong or perhaps we need to think about the discussion we are having with the rest of the Trust membership. Are they happy? Or are they happy that they have someone running the show for them and that is as far as they will go on the matter?

Exactly. That's why I'd happily contribute to a fighting fund which, for instance, hosted meetings for disaffected supporters to thrash out the issues with a view to devising a strategy to ensure that come the next elections we had a slate of candidates, with the same agenda, who were known well beyond ExeWeb and stood every chance of being elected and affecting change.

 

[RaeUK]

^^^ I wouldn't have thought that beyond the remit.

 

[Forever7]

Watching the recent Trust Forum live and online, I'm afraid I was left with the distinct impression that the Trust had no real idea just how disenchanted current and abstaining potential members are. It was one of the things in the back of my mind as I pondered the Pitchforks.

I agree with you there Rae. I too watched it online and formed the same opinion. The Trust have stood still for ages, the level of investment in the Football Club has remained the same for God knows how long, yet I believe Trust membership has gone up? Other than trying to gather new members and undertaking community projects, which are all well and good but have very little impact on the club itself, I don't see a great deal of things happening. These should be side issues, not main Trust issues. I certainly don't see investment or trying to find investment other than increasing membership, which has to be the priority, surely?

I am still waiting to hear the Trust's plans to celebrate its ten year anniversary... or have they done that? If all they plan to do to mark the occasion is sell 10-year pin badges, T-shirts with players names spelt incorrectly and a have dinner for Trust members only with David Conn, then it pretty much sums up how unambitious they are. I fear this is another opportunity spurned to make some money for the club.

Disenchanted? You bet!

 

[Egg]

As touched on in posts #33 and #35? To be fair, Egg, you sound like just the person we need on the BoS. Will you be standing?

No. Many of the BoS's failings date back to my time on it and, that being the case, it would be a bit hypocritical for me to offer myself as part of the solution. Certainly, I'll share my thoughts – and I think I have a pretty good insight into lots of the issues - but I'll leave it to others who are better equipped than me to steer the ship in the right direction to stand for office.

 

[Thames Valley Red]

Local Laughing Stock

Well done the Trust for starting to make us look like a local laughing stock. People have been pondering other forms of intervention for a while. The writing was on the wall when the Trust Chairmen started to ignore fans on the terraces. You can bury your head in the sand, but you cant now deny the ground swell of people wishing to take the club a better direction. I know Pete Martin SC Chair has been offered large sums of money towards a different funding vehicle, because I know two of the people prepared to punt up some money.

So Trust ignore the fans at your peril, before you know it there will be a full page advert in the Echo advertising the alternative funding vehicle and the present form of the Trust will die in it present form. Or perhaps if any of the Trust inner circle read this, perhaps start to build some bridges. If this club collapses out of the league you will be held responsible. We need to take control of the club, cut our backroom cloth accordingly and start to rebuild the club on and off the field before its Northwich and Farsley Celtic again!

UTC

TVR