Trust agm motion

[sumner7]

As you can see from the response I got to my email in post #823 Byll, it seems like the trust are trying to play it safe at this moment in time, although I note from the response I received that there is a club board meeting on Thursday. Whether anything will come of it then I don't know, but I feel that it's vital that as many people as possible get to the forum next week to air their views and grievances.

We're in an alarming situation, and need to act before it's too late. It's all very well informing the club board of concerns, but what actions are the club/trust going to take to make it better?

 

[MarkLee]

We're in an alarming situation, and need to act before it's too late. It's all very well informing the club board of concerns, but what actions are the club/trust going to take to make it better?

From the responses that we've had there are two possible answers:

1) The Trust Board are going to take action to make it better but are unwilling/unable to tell us what this action is.
2) The only option is an EGM or Vote of No Confidence in the Club Board, but the Trust Board do not feel that we are 'anywhere near that scenario at present'

Sumner, I agree that a large supporter presence at the Fans Forum next week is really important. I'll be there. Let's keep questions on the Whole Game Solution brief so that we can get to the important stuff as quick as possible!

 

[tonykellowfan]

Martin Weiler's response seems measured and sensible to me.

The guy is new to the position and I think we are going to see some action.

I would suggest that Trust members should consider an EGM to remove the Trust Board if nothing happens in the next few weeks.

 

[norfolk_exile]

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but there is now the ability to 'live stream' through Facebook. I was wondering if, given this is a public forum, it would be possible for this to be broadcast live to anyone following The Trust on Facebook for those who cannot attend like me living in Yorkshire?

To work though it would have to be broadcast by someone who everybody follows like the Trust Facebook page - whoever the admin of that might be?

 

[Terryhall]

I think specific to the fans forum, it should be the fans that set the agenda. I can fully appreciate that the respective chairs want to give some update to the fans on things that they feel are important, and that's OK - but proper communication is a two way street and therefore I think both chairs should keep their updates succinct and to the point and have the first part, communication to the fans, done and dusted, collectively, within half of the overall time available. That way the other half can be allocated to the communication in the other direction, from the fans, on the topics that the fans feel are important.

I don't think that should be seen as too controversial a position. If either or both of the two chairs attending feel uncomfortable at that prospect then perhaps that is an indication of the uncomfortable situation that the club finds itself in at the bottom of the football league with just 2 home wins in 2016.

 

[MarkLee]

I would suggest that Trust members should consider an EGM to remove the Trust Board if nothing happens in the next few weeks.

Trust Board, or Club Board?

We've only just voted the Trust Board in.

 

[tonykellowfan]

The Trust Board.

If Tisdale is not removed from his post in the next few weeks then the people involved are not up to the job.

An EGM should be called with the express purpose of replacing the Trust Board with a set of people who will remove Tisdale Tagg and Perryman from the football club.

 

[Jason H]

The Trust Board.

If Tisdale is not removed from his post in the next few weeks then the people involved are not up to the job.

An EGM should be called with the express purpose of replacing the Trust Board with a set of people who will remove Tisdale Tagg and Perryman from the football club.

There was an election, the results of which were announced almost exactly a month ago. The opportunity was afforded the electorate at that time to vote for the "change" candidates, the electorate by and large demurred.

(Incidentally I was disappointed not to see Mark Cordell, who I know posts on here, elected as I thought his candidate statement stood out.)

 

[BigBanker]

There was an election, the results of which were announced almost exactly a month ago. The opportunity was afforded the electorate at that time to vote for the "change" candidates, the electorate by and large demurred.

That's how I see it.

A Vote of No Confidence should be made by the Trust Board (in it's capacity as majority shareholder) regarding the Club Board.

It won't ever happen though, it's far too drastic a measure to be taken by committee, so the Trust will bottle it whatever happens.

 

[Terryhall]

There was an election, the results of which were announced almost exactly a month ago. The opportunity was afforded the electorate at that time to vote for the "change" candidates, the electorate by and large demurred.

I agree with that. Everyone has the right to disagree with the outcome of a vote, but if the outcome isn't the one you wanted, then you have to accept the fact that you are in the minority.

Quite aside from that, a vote of no confidence in the Trust Board would have the exact opposite effect of what is (presumably) intended, as it would almost certainly strengthen the position of those currently in control of the club.

I do have some degree of sympathy for those who think the Trust model is broken but I am not there yet and I still think that the quickest way to change things (note - not necessarily actually quick in any sense of the word, but still quicker than other methods) is to properly engage via the means that are available - that being motions to the Trust Board to take actual action.

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.

Any Trust member can do the same thing - canvas support for your idea - get it drafted up as watertight as you can (and be open to constructive comments in this regard, in particular comments that take into account pre-emptive objections that may be likely to be raised and how to best navigate them) - get it in front of the Trust Board with enough support and get it put to the membership to vote upon.

It is a convoluted process but, speaking frankly, it is infinitely more effective than saying "the Trust model doesn't work" and complaining online.