Time to give the Trust 'teeth'

gwyn you run down the trust time and time again , get pulled up for putting up untrue stats about its membership numbers

its time to give it a rest , you are making yourself look daft

loads to be done to improve the trust but having you diss it all the time does you no favours at all

What untrue stats have I put up, the membership secretary put the figures up on site for everyone to see, there are 650 registered members, but as we know for instance when I joined I registered my wife and son, others may have registered four or five members of their family, some obviously just themselves, but as a rule of thumb, 650 registrations would roughly work out to 220 households at a conservative estimate.

How untrue is that?

I think the club have come up with the answer and have put it in place, by balloting the fan base as a whole and correlating the results and getting a much bigger and more accurate set of answers, will be far more representative of the true picture and none of us can argue the case then.

gwyn you run down the trust time and time again , get pulled up for putting up untrue stats about its membership numbers

its time to give it a rest , you are making yourself look daft

loads to be done to improve the trust but having you diss it all the time does you no favours at all

What untrue stats have I put up, the membership secretary put the figures up on site for everyone to see, there are 650 registered members, but as we know for instance when I joined I registered my wife and son, others may have registered four or five members of their family, some obviously just themselves, but as a rule of thumb, 650 registrations would roughly work out to 220 households at a conservative estimate.

How untrue is that?

I think the club have come up with the answer and have put it in place, by balloting the fan base as a whole and correlating the results and getting a much bigger and more accurate set of answers, will be far more representative of the true picture and none of us can argue the case then.

Gwyn , as you are well aware , the Trust membership secretary only posted the actual figures to correct the misleading impression you had previously given by posting wildly inaccurate ones.

Your latest "rule of thumb" figure is also way out. I have just looked at the membership list as at the 3rd week of July which is the latest date I have for bank statements reconciled to the membership list. This shows 243 seperate payees to which has to be added 159 members whose annual fees are not paid until August or later each year. This gives a total of 402 seperate people paying for membership , almost double your figure.

As for the clubs ballot , it is hardly representative is it of fans views on the rebranding when it specifically excludes the topic from the questionnaire.Further , again as you are aware (because you were there) , the club was asked at the meeting on 8 May to electronically ballot the 16k+ season ticket holders for their views on whether they wanted the kit changes , and the club declined to do so even though it could have been done within hours and at negligible cost.

On a similar topic , you claim elsewhere in this thread that the Trust took nearly a month to canvass the views of its members on the rebranding. Again not true (as again I believe you are fully aware) as it sent Emails to all its members it could contact by that method within an hour or so of that meeting on 8 May finishing.

I am a member of the Trust but has i have said previously the trust needs to increase it's membership but to this end does not help itself. In my opinion it has to spread it's roots by holding meetings outside of Cardiff and using the meetings to explain it's aims and recruit new members.

I have previously contacted the Trust and offered my local Club in Aberdare has a venue for a trust meeting and have offered to promote such a meeting but to no avail. I agree with the aims of the Trust and believe a strong trust with a much larger membership could have a powerful voice.

However until the Trust reaches out to potential members in the valleys,Bridgend, Neath etc it will continue to remain weak and have very little power within the Club

it was agreed that ponty would be a better base for valleys fans as its easy access from most of the valleys , being at the centre of the A470

I remember the meeting arranged in Ponty and that was commenable but still feel that the trust could set up more meetings/recruitment drives in the Valleys wouldn't have to have a the full Trust Committee present just a representative to explain the aims and views of the trust this could be done in copnjunction with help from Trust members in the various locations? Personally i would be more than happy to organise a meeting in Aberdare with a Trust Representative present if no one turns up then i would be the first to hold my hands up and say there's not much more you can do!

gwyn you run down the trust time and time again , get pulled up for putting up untrue stats about its membership numbers
I am really at a loss now, what misleading figures? I have only used membership figures that have been show on the boards, it was shown recently that there are 650 members, is that misleading, now working along the lines that quite a few myself included took out a family type membership that included the Wife and son in my case, it would be fair to assume that a good few others did the same, is that misleading?

its time to give it a rest , you are making yourself look daft

loads to be done to improve the trust but having you diss it all the time does you no favours at all

How untrue is that?

I think the club have come up with the answer and have put it in place, by balloting the fan base as a whole and correlating the results and getting a much bigger and more accurate set of answers, will be far more representative of the true picture and none of us can argue the case then.

Gwyn , as you are well aware , the Trust membership secretary only posted the actual figures to correct the misleading impression you had previously given by posting wildly inaccurate ones.

I wasn't aware the Trust posted the actual figures to correct the misleading impression I had wildly posted, what wild figures did I post?

Your latest "rule of thumb" figure is also way out. I have just looked at the membership list as at the 3rd week of July which is the latest date I have for bank statements reconciled to the membership list. This shows 243 seperate payees to which has to be added 159 members whose annual fees are not paid until August or later each year. This gives a total of 402 seperate people paying for membership , almost double your figure.


What untrue stats have I put up, the membership secretary put the figures up on site for everyone to see, there are 650 registered members, but as we know for instance when I joined I registered my wife and son, others may have registered four or five members of their family, some obviously just themselves, but as a rule of thumb, 650 registrations would roughly work out to 220 households at a conservative estimate.If you are stating this in truth is or will be 400 households if all of the 150 due rejoin then great, some facts rather than assumptions.Possibly I wrongly assume that the majority of members would belng to and include their family member's in their membership, but it would look as if this isn't the case, and may suggest that a good few of the members are either single, or just haven't bothered to register their family members


As for the clubs ballot , it is hardly representative is it of fans views on the rebranding when it specifically excludes the topic from the questionnaire.Further , again as you are aware (because you were there) , the club was asked at the meeting on 8 May to electronically ballot the 16k+ season ticket holders for their views on whether they wanted the kit changes , and the club declined to do so even though it could have been done within hours and at negligible cost.

With regard to the club ballot, I was referring to the future approach they have said they will take, and rather than have meetings as they have done they will use technology to contact the registered fa base and get a much bigger truer picture of how the majority see things, which can only be a good thing surely. Also with new league rules, the club have to appoint a person to deal with such matters at the club and be a go between for fans issues etc.

As for balloting the fans after VT had made the decision, I'm sure VT would have been most grateful to his staff for doing this without his say so, I think Gethin Jenkins would have had a few ex colleagues with him looking for a job down the job centre. And at the end of the day, what if they had done it and 51% were against and 49% where for rebrand.

If that had happened and VT had withdrawn his investment plan, would that have been seen as a success, and would the 49% be happy to accept it, and on the other hand if VT had seen the figures and said it's happening anyway, would the 51% have been happy with the outcome.
The die was set, and either way there was going to be a divide, but at the end of the day, vote ballot elect, whatever, the club is not run as a democratic workingmen's type of club, its is a business and run by it's owners, we can vote all day it wouldn't solve anything.


On a similar topic , you claim elsewhere in this thread that the Trust took nearly a month to canvass the views of its members on the rebranding. Again not true (as again I believe you are fully aware) as it sent Emails to all its members it could contact by that method within an hour or so of that meeting on 8 May finishing.

I was referring to the voting procedure and letters they sent out to members and the figures that came from that exercise.
In all fairness to Tracy Marsh, she did say at the second meeting which was only a matter of days in between that she had sent out e mails, but one of the problems was the majority of the Trust members lived well outside the catchment area and consisted of a lot of what people refer to as exiles, so mail shots and personal meetings were a problem.
But as it showed from the actual postal ballot, only 150 members I believe were against it anyway, so hardly a majority of the Trust membership felt strongly enough to oppose it.


It's a bit like politics, I find it strange people complain about the Tories, yet couldn't be bothered to vote in the election, very frustrating.

Gwyn its very hard to take your comments seriously regarding the trust.You have on many occasions stated that we do not have the right to have our say and you have been quite adamant that our owners have the right to do whatever they want with the club without question from us fans.When some fans were questioning the rebrand you stated who did we (the fans) think we were to question the descisions of our owners.
The idea of the trust is that it represents the fans interests yet that seems to be totally at odds with your beliefs on fans rights and thats why it is important that the Trust is made up of members who will not not only recognise our right to a say but are also aware that the trust is not there merely to rubber stamp every decision Emperor Tan makes.

What Does the Trust Do?
* Maintains a regular dialogue with the Club on behalf of supporters
* Encourages the Club to take account of its supporters and the community it serves, in its decision-making
* Strengthens the bond between Cardiff City, its supporters and the local community
* Maintains a significant shareholding in Cardiff City on behalf of our members
* Presents a positive image for Cardiff City, helping to overturn negative attitudes and prejudice towards the Club.
* Maintains a contingency fund for further CCFC share purchases or to help the Club in troubled times
* Uses members’ money to benefit members, the community and other appropriate good causes.
* Ultimately, our aim is to achieve supporter representation on the board of Cardiff City

I believe the Trust has out-served its usefulness and is about time it was wound up. I attended a couple of pre-Trust meetings when we were in very troubled times financially and the focus was very much on building a Trust to buy shares in the club and get a member on the board. Now it seems this has been filtered down this list of Trust aims in favour of more happy-clappy "Community" bull$hit.

Times have changed since the Trust started out. It is now pretty obvious it will never get a "significant shareholding" or anyone on the board. In that respect, it has failed (through no fault of its own), but because others will have a £100M stake in the club.

It was so embarrassing and cringeworthy to see Hartley on the TV moaning that Swansea City Supporters Trust have a member on their board, so we should have one on ours!! If you're serious, buy a 20% stake in the club (like Swansea) and then demand a seat on the board. However, it'll now cost the Trust at least £20M to do so once the Malaysians turn their debt into equity.

In the meantime, the only thing left for the Trust to do is have their 6-monthly or yearly one-way dialogue with the club. It would be cheaper if they just bought a programme.

ALSO - SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE TRUST ...
(1) What is the current shareholding held by the Trust in both shares and as a Total Percentage Ownership of the Club?
(2) How many shares were bought in the last 12 months?
(3) Will the Trust consider reimbursing Trust members subscription fees which were paid on the understanding that they would be used to buy shares in the club?

Gwyn its very hard to take your comments seriously regarding the trust.You have on many occasions stated that we do not have the right to have our say and you have been quite adamant that our owners have the right to do whatever they want with the club without question from us fans.When some fans were questioning the rebrand you stated who did we (the fans) think we were to question the descisions of our owners.
The idea of the trust is that it represents the fans interests yet that seems to be totally at odds with your beliefs on fans rights and thats why it is important that the Trust is made up of members who will not not only recognise our right to a say but are also aware that the trust is not there merely to rubber stamp every decision Emperor Tan makes.

Exactly as you say the Trust represents the fans interests, so when eighty percent of their membership decide they don't want to oppose the rebrand , surely that is giving them a voice and taking their opinions on board.
The twenty percent of the Trust that were opposed to it, should now just accept it move on and go with the majority view, is that what your saying, if so then democracy rules. Where is the problem.

No problem with democracy in action Gwyn but you must remember that you were all for denying the fans against the rebrand a say at all. We need to be sure that the trust reflect what the fans want. For example, if you sat on the trust then you would not have opposed the rebrand in the slightest yet originally the majority of fans would have wanted the trust to at least raise an objection which is something that you would not have done judging by the interview you gave on tv.
Initially there were very few fans at the time who would have welcomed the rebrand unconditionally yet even if the majority of fans wanted to oppose the changes in the slightest then you would not have represented their views. It is sometimes the case that you have to represent a view which you personally disagree with but better to do this than not represent the fans at all.

I am a member of the Trust but has i have said previously the trust needs to increase it's membership but to this end does not help itself. In my opinion it has to spread it's roots by holding meetings outside of Cardiff and using the meetings to explain it's aims and recruit new members.

I have previously contacted the Trust and offered my local Club in Aberdare has a venue for a trust meeting and have offered to promote such a meeting but to no avail. I agree with the aims of the Trust and believe a strong trust with a much larger membership could have a powerful voice.

However until the Trust reaches out to potential members in the valleys,Bridgend, Neath etc it will continue to remain weak and have very little power within the Club

it was agreed that ponty would be a better base for valleys fans as its easy access from most of the valleys , being at the centre of the A470

Give me some suggested dates and I will try and get this organised from the Trust end.

As others say , there have been Trust meetings and events in Maesteg and Pontypridd , but your offer to host one in Aberdare is appreciated. Perhaps you could p.m. me as well so we can discuss the type of event you have in mind so we can discuss the details .

Keith

I remember the meeting arranged in Ponty and that was commenable but still feel that the trust could set up more meetings/recruitment drives in the Valleys wouldn't have to have a the full Trust Committee present just a representative to explain the aims and views of the trust this could be done in copnjunction with help from Trust members in the various locations? Personally i would be more than happy to organise a meeting in Aberdare with a Trust Representative present if no one turns up then i would be the first to hold my hands up and say there's not much more you can do!

What Does the Trust Do?
* Maintains a regular dialogue with the Club on behalf of supporters
* Encourages the Club to take account of its supporters and the community it serves, in its decision-making
* Strengthens the bond between Cardiff City, its supporters and the local community
* Maintains a significant shareholding in Cardiff City on behalf of our members
* Presents a positive image for Cardiff City, helping to overturn negative attitudes and prejudice towards the Club.
* Maintains a contingency fund for further CCFC share purchases or to help the Club in troubled times
* Uses members’ money to benefit members, the community and other appropriate good causes.
* Ultimately, our aim is to achieve supporter representation on the board of Cardiff City

I believe the Trust has out-served its usefulness and is about time it was wound up. I attended a couple of pre-Trust meetings when we were in very troubled times financially and the focus was very much on building a Trust to buy shares in the club and get a member on the board. Now it seems this has been filtered down this list of Trust aims in favour of more happy-clappy "Community" bull$hit.

Times have changed since the Trust started out. It is now pretty obvious it will never get a "significant shareholding" or anyone on the board. In that respect, it has failed (through no fault of its own), but because others will have a £100M stake in the club.

It was so embarrassing and cringeworthy to see Hartley on the TV moaning that Swansea City Supporters Trust have a member on their board, so we should have one on ours!! If you're serious, buy a 20% stake in the club (like Swansea) and then demand a seat on the board. However, it'll now cost the Trust at least £20M to do so once the Malaysians turn their debt into equity.

In the meantime, the only thing left for the Trust to do is have their 6-monthly or yearly one-way dialogue with the club. It would be cheaper if they just bought a programme.

ALSO - SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE TRUST ...
(1) What is the current shareholding held by the Trust in both shares and as a Total Percentage Ownership of the Club?
(2) How many shares were bought in the last 12 months?
(3) Will the Trust consider reimbursing Trust members subscription fees which were paid on the understanding that they would be used to buy shares in the club?

I have no idea who you are or whether you are a regular messageboard poster under another name (perhaps disclosing this would make the reasons for your views clearer) but you clearly have a dislike for the Trust movement and what it stands for from your comments. That`s fair enough , but perhaps a few points of clarification on the points you make would be helpful.

Alfie Sherwood listed out for you the main purposes of a Trust. These aims are fairly standard across all Trusts , being based on a Supporters Direct model and also controlled by statute , and apply to virtually all football and other sporting club Trusts in the UK .

The Trust was set up to give "ordinary" supporters access to a voice in discussions with the club , and you are quite right to say that buying a significant shareholding and getting representation on the club board were two initial long term aims to help in this.There has been no "filtering down" of those aims - they remain. The Trust acquired shares so that it has the right to attend and be heard (on behalf of all its members that would otherwise not have a voice) at shareholders meetings.All such meetings have been attended , like the recent AGM , all members` questions asked are raised , and all responses given reported back. As club shares are not issued to new shareholders , this is an opportunity they would otherwise not have.

To hold shares at all gives the powers referred to above. I agree however , that the Trust will never have a large percentage of the total shares (unless the club collapses financially which I don`t think any of its fans would want). Indeed , only Vincent Tan (36%) and Michael Isaac (11%) are individuals or organisations holding more than 10% - the current shares are very widely spread. Also , no-one has a £100m stake in the club at present and will never have such a shareholding unless and until further loan advances are made and then all converted into equity - no timescale or binding commitment has been made to put this into effect .

The second long term aim of board representation is more achievable. Not from acquiring a large percentage of shares (a lot of the current directors are not shareholders themselves) , but from changes in legislation and corporate governance in football which are likely to take place in the next decade.This process has already started at UK government level in which the Trust movement is heavily involved.

For information , the Trust does not just have a 6 monthly or yearly one way dialogue with the club but probably meets at a senior level on average every 6 weeks or so and very much on a two-way basis.

In direct answer to your specific questions

1) the Trust has £7k of shares in Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd which is a tiny percentage of the £9.5m of shares in issue.

2)No shares have been bought by the Trust in the last 12 months as it was agreed by its members that it should not do so.

3)there is no requirement to reimburse any member their subscription fee (I don`t understand your point on this) as shares WERE bought from a specific agreed share purchase fund until such time as members agreed not to buy any more.

Keith

I am not sticking up for Gwyn, far from it, I am giving my opinion. The Trust never accepted critics and if anyone dare try say they should of done this or should do this in future, you were immediately shot down. People go on about inner circles, well I felt and many others felt they were a closed shop and they were more like an inner circle. We should be allowed our opinions regarding the Trust and especially if you were a member. I thought the trust were suppose to be there for the fans and also there to watch over how our club was run, but in the 2yrs I was a member, I would say they were quite the opposite to both these things. But like I say if they had a total clear out and a fresh start who knows what they could achieve.

And before anyone accuses me of totally disliking them, I have quite a few friends who belong to the Trust and still do Tlg , Mike Roderick and Sludge etc Like I say I was a member for 2yrs, but it wasnt for me.

Annis I disagree with you - I "manned" the help@ email for quite some time (albeit probably after you resigned) and always brought up any queries, criticisms etc. that were raised at the Trust Board meetings. I think but am not 100% certain that before me Mike Roderick and Dave Sugarman checked them at various points in time.

Open meetings also took place (and were advertised) where all were welcome - not just Trust members.

I believe that all too often people wanted to criticize either anonymously or from afar. There were (and are) appropriate channels of communication. It certainly wasn't (and isn't) an inner circle - in fact that's laughable.

You were at the meeting on Thursday May 10th when Alan Whitely said that he would have told the Trust about the shirt/badge changes earlier but because the Trust always said it had to be transparent and tell their members everything that the club told them - he didn't chose not to! I don't think you could be less inner circle than that.

Annis I disagree with you - I "manned" the help@ email for quite some time (albeit probably after you resigned) and always brought up any queries, criticisms etc. that were raised at the Trust Board meetings. I think but am not 100% certain that before me Mike Roderick and Dave Sugarman checked them at various points in time.

Open meetings also took place (and were advertised) where all were welcome - not just Trust members.

I believe that all too often people wanted to criticize either anonymously or from afar. There were (and are) appropriate channels of communication. It certainly wasn't (and isn't) an inner circle - in fact that's laughable.

You were at the meeting on Thursday May 10th when Alan Whitely said that he would have told the Trust about the shirt/badge changes earlier but because the Trust always said it had to be transparent and tell their members everything that the club told them - he didn't chose not to! I don't think you could be less inner circle than that.

Tracey,
I am not saying you never tried, but it did feel like a couple of years ago that it was a closed shop and yes I was one of them who was critical, but I was also trying to get you to go out to a bigger audience.
You never know what lies ahead.
Like I say Newport and Swansea have now got an excellent supporters trust.