THERES ONLY ONE TIMMY HARTLEY THERES ONLY ONE TIMMY .....

Hurt grudge hate

Life too short to do any of those fella over a football team. Especially a red franchise one

Hows your bluebird anyway ? still standing by ready to walk when it comes of the badge ?

Bitter. are you not embarrassed to come on this board after your big girly

"I'm gone for good - my beloved West Ham need me"

A man is only as good as his word in my book. I keep mine!

Okay Dave - I will save a seat at UP next season for you we can go and see your mucker !

You didnt answer the question

Well it certaintly answered mine! He's been drinking again.

Hurt grudge hate

Life too short to do any of those fella over a football team. Especially a red franchise one

Hows your bluebird anyway ? still standing by ready to walk when it comes of the badge ?

Bitter. are you not embarrassed to come on this board after your big girly

"I'm gone for good - my beloved West Ham need me"

A man is only as good as his word in my book. I keep mine!

Okay Dave - I will save a seat at UP next season for you we can go and see your mucker !

You didnt answer the question

He never does. I see he's learning from Boris very well.

I see mods have been hard at work deleting half this thread

The Trust have a whole issue with putting the Chicken before the Egg. Honestly they have only 300 members and they believe that should entitle them to a seat on the board?

Right from the off the Trust's problem has been they have no appeal and that is why the membership numbers are so low. You have to earn respect in life it is not given to you and the Trust have badly failed on this score. In it's short life it has had 2 golden oppotunities to shine (Peter Ridsdale/Rebrand) and it was found wanting both times.

The excuse given both times was "it leaves the Trust in a difficult positon"

Well if Mr Hartley was given a place on the board then doesn't he understand he might have "difficult positions" to deal with?

They should get back to basics and admit that the whole Trust project up until now has been an absolute disaster. They need to wipe the slate clean and start again but this time concentrate on recruiting a sizable membership from our existing supporter base, rather than chasing brownie points for doing the PC thing in immigrant areas.

Only when the Trust has a sizable membership will they have the clout to be listened to, but until then they will remain a laughing stock.

Tony

Any comments on the detailed response I gave to your post in this thread?

The Trust have a whole issue with putting the Chicken before the Egg. Honestly they have only 300 members and they believe that should entitle them to a seat on the board?

Right from the off the Trust's problem has been they have no appeal and that is why the membership numbers are so low. You have to earn respect in life it is not given to you and the Trust have badly failed on this score. In it's short life it has had 2 golden oppotunities to shine (Peter Ridsdale/Rebrand) and it was found wanting both times.

The excuse given both times was "it leaves the Trust in a difficult positon"

Well if Mr Hartley was given a place on the board then doesn't he understand he might have "difficult positions" to deal with?

They should get back to basics and admit that the whole Trust project up until now has been an absolute disaster. They need to wipe the slate clean and start again but this time concentrate on recruiting a sizable membership from our existing supporter base, rather than chasing brownie points for doing the PC thing in immigrant areas.

Only when the Trust has a sizable membership will they have the clout to be listened to, but until then they will remain a laughing stock.

Tony

Any comments on the detailed response I gave to your post in this thread?

Or to Tim Hartley`s extremely well written post on here today?

The Trust have a whole issue with putting the Chicken before the Egg. Honestly they have only 300 members and they believe that should entitle them to a seat on the board?

Right from the off the Trust's problem has been they have no appeal and that is why the membership numbers are so low. You have to earn respect in life it is not given to you and the Trust have badly failed on this score. In it's short life it has had 2 golden oppotunities to shine (Peter Ridsdale/Rebrand) and it was found wanting both times.

The excuse given both times was "it leaves the Trust in a difficult positon"

Well if Mr Hartley was given a place on the board then doesn't he understand he might have "difficult positions" to deal with?

They should get back to basics and admit that the whole Trust project up until now has been an absolute disaster. They need to wipe the slate clean and start again but this time concentrate on recruiting a sizable membership from our existing supporter base, rather than chasing brownie points for doing the PC thing in immigrant areas.

Only when the Trust has a sizable membership will they have the clout to be listened to, but until then they will remain a laughing stock.

Tony

I actually agree with some of the things you say so my response is not here just for arguments sake , but some of your comments are wildly inaccurate and need a response for the sake of balance and reasonableness.

The Trust does not only have 300 members , it has over double that.Indeed it has more members than the vast majority of other Trusts of clubs in the Championship. (I know this from attending meetings of that group).
However , I agree that its numbers are far too low at present to greatly influence the club (I have some personal doubts that even 20,000 members would get Mr Tan to listen which is why he blocked the idea of a survey of season ticket holders at the time of the initial rebranding announcement despite representatives of the Trust , Supporters Club , messageboards etc all agreeing that this would be a good idea and suggesting it to the club at the time).But the fact that it is difficult to implement shouldn`t mean people should stop trying.

The idea of supporter representation on club boards is one shared by the whole Supporters Direct movement and the FSF (so representing over 100,000 fans) as well as by the Government , its not just some kind of whim of the CCST. The form of representation is open to debate and , in my belief , will vary greatly depending on the size of a club concerned. At the very least though it should involve having a part of each board meeting agenda dedicated to fan issues - so a fans rep could be involved in that part and not other parts involving commercially sensitive information etc (happens often in normal commercial enterprises). This would enable fans issues to be raised and answers pressed for (or unwillingness to answer reported back) by an independent body voted for regularly by the fans themselves. At present the only independent democratically elected fans`body in football clubs are the Trusts.An existing board member , whather also a fan or not , cannot do this as there is a clear economic conflict involved. (e.g. Steve Borley is undoubtedly a fan but is economically dependent on Vincent Tan).

I don`t follow your point about missed opportunities re Peter Ridsdale , but fully take on board that a mixed set of views from the initial survey of members re the rebranding meant that the issue wasn`t taken forward as powerfully as it might have been with a different result.That was the "difficult position" you refer to. Personally , I was disappointed with that survey result as I have strong views on the rebranding (which I usefully express forcefully with the club at meetings in a personal capacity) but that`s democracy for you!
With Ridsdale , the Trust board were well aware that he was on his last legs at the club as it were and about to be ousted by the Malaysians , so no point in kicking up a fuss over something that was about to happen anyway. The march to the ground was another way of approaching it which may have helped , but didn`t cause him to go. I attended that march as did other Trust board members and it was clearly suggested that Trust members should make their own mind up whether they wanted to or not - they are adults with their own independent mind and don`t need to be told what to do, nor should they.There was no "difficult position" expressed there or existing there at all.

I obviously don`t agree that the Trust should wipe the slate clean and start again or that it has been a disaster. And at some point neither did you as you stood for election to its board , which necessitates believing in its principles in being eligible to stand. Stand again for election if you want to change things. There are new elections coming up shortly and if enough members believe in what you want to do , they will elect you and you can help change things from within.Its open to any Trust member to stand and people are voted in on a simple one adult member one vote basis with an independent opening , count and announcement of votes cast.
This is a genuine question now because I have forgotten , but I can`t recall what your "campaign message" that accompanied your ballot paper to members seeking their votes was.If you could remind me on here , there may well be important issues in that paper that need to be addressed and carried forward by the Trust board in any case.

As I said , this is meant as a balanced response to promote a sensible debate of an important issue not just to trigger an argument.

Keith

Keith

I am trying not to be confrontational but the Trust is an obvious disaster as it only has 600 members (at most even by your admission) and that is after 4 to 5 years of existence. Indeed your membership numbers have at best flat lined for the last 3 years. Also the fact that other Trusts are also poorly supported is no excuse nor is your other excuse that more members wouldn’t make a difference to Vincent Tan.

The point about Ridsdale and the chance missed by the Trust to hit the ground running is so blindingly obvious (well to everyone but you that is). Whatever Ridsdale’s personal position was at the time the Trust could have shown great leadership if it had come out in open support of those who had been scammed by PR over the Golden Ticket fiasco, so much so 2500 (all potential Trust Members) marched in protest to the stadium. Surely you can see the opportunity you missed?

You always like a personal dig and low and behold there was one in your final paragraphs. I couldn’t stand for the Trust Board as I am not a member of the Trust any longer and I would only CONSIDER rejoining it if the old guard on the Trust Board was cleared out and some new blood with better leadership qualities (i.e. a few backbones) were elected instead.

Finally as you perfectly know the Trust Board is a complete closed shop due to the general low membership of the Trust. People like Tim Hartley and yourself will always get elected onto the TB as you know nearly everyone who is likely to vote and thus have an extreme advantage over any newcomers. Actually when you consider I was an unknown I did very well to get as many votes as I did so your snide remarks don’t wash as I stood on a point of principle not on a point of I’m going to get elected by my friends even though I have presided over a complete disaster.

The Trust have a whole issue with putting the Chicken before the Egg. Honestly they have only 300 members and they believe that should entitle them to a seat on the board?

Right from the off the Trust's problem has been they have no appeal and that is why the membership numbers are so low. You have to earn respect in life it is not given to you and the Trust have badly failed on this score. In it's short life it has had 2 golden oppotunities to shine (Peter Ridsdale/Rebrand) and it was found wanting both times.

The excuse given both times was "it leaves the Trust in a difficult positon"

Well if Mr Hartley was given a place on the board then doesn't he understand he might have "difficult positions" to deal with?

They should get back to basics and admit that the whole Trust project up until now has been an absolute disaster. They need to wipe the slate clean and start again but this time concentrate on recruiting a sizable membership from our existing supporter base, rather than chasing brownie points for doing the PC thing in immigrant areas.

Only when the Trust has a sizable membership will they have the clout to be listened to, but until then they will remain a laughing stock.

Tony

I actually agree with some of the things you say so my response is not here just for arguments sake , but some of your comments are wildly inaccurate and need a response for the sake of balance and reasonableness.

The Trust does not only have 300 members , it has over double that.Indeed it has more members than the vast majority of other Trusts of clubs in the Championship. (I know this from attending meetings of that group).
However , I agree that its numbers are far too low at present to greatly influence the club (I have some personal doubts that even 20,000 members would get Mr Tan to listen which is why he blocked the idea of a survey of season ticket holders at the time of the initial rebranding announcement despite representatives of the Trust , Supporters Club , messageboards etc all agreeing that this would be a good idea and suggesting it to the club at the time).But the fact that it is difficult to implement shouldn`t mean people should stop trying.

The idea of supporter representation on club boards is one shared by the whole Supporters Direct movement and the FSF (so representing over 100,000 fans) as well as by the Government , its not just some kind of whim of the CCST. The form of representation is open to debate and , in my belief , will vary greatly depending on the size of a club concerned. At the very least though it should involve having a part of each board meeting agenda dedicated to fan issues - so a fans rep could be involved in that part and not other parts involving commercially sensitive information etc (happens often in normal commercial enterprises). This would enable fans issues to be raised and answers pressed for (or unwillingness to answer reported back) by an independent body voted for regularly by the fans themselves. At present the only independent democratically elected fans`body in football clubs are the Trusts.An existing board member , whather also a fan or not , cannot do this as there is a clear economic conflict involved. (e.g. Steve Borley is undoubtedly a fan but is economically dependent on Vincent Tan).

I don`t follow your point about missed opportunities re Peter Ridsdale , but fully take on board that a mixed set of views from the initial survey of members re the rebranding meant that the issue wasn`t taken forward as powerfully as it might have been with a different result.That was the "difficult position" you refer to. Personally , I was disappointed with that survey result as I have strong views on the rebranding (which I usefully express forcefully with the club at meetings in a personal capacity) but that`s democracy for you!
With Ridsdale , the Trust board were well aware that he was on his last legs at the club as it were and about to be ousted by the Malaysians , so no point in kicking up a fuss over something that was about to happen anyway. The march to the ground was another way of approaching it which may have helped , but didn`t cause him to go. I attended that march as did other Trust board members and it was clearly suggested that Trust members should make their own mind up whether they wanted to or not - they are adults with their own independent mind and don`t need to be told what to do, nor should they.There was no "difficult position" expressed there or existing there at all.

I obviously don`t agree that the Trust should wipe the slate clean and start again or that it has been a disaster. And at some point neither did you as you stood for election to its board , which necessitates believing in its principles in being eligible to stand. Stand again for election if you want to change things. There are new elections coming up shortly and if enough members believe in what you want to do , they will elect you and you can help change things from within.Its open to any Trust member to stand and people are voted in on a simple one adult member one vote basis with an independent opening , count and announcement of votes cast.
This is a genuine question now because I have forgotten , but I can`t recall what your "campaign message" that accompanied your ballot paper to members seeking their votes was.If you could remind me on here , there may well be important issues in that paper that need to be addressed and carried forward by the Trust board in any case.

As I said , this is meant as a balanced response to promote a sensible debate of an important issue not just to trigger an argument.

Keith

Keith

I am trying not to be confrontational but the Trust is an obvious disaster as it only has 600 members (at most even by your admission) and that is after 4 to 5 years of existence. Indeed your membership numbers have at best flat lined for the last 3 years. Also the fact that other Trusts are also poorly supported is no excuse nor is your other excuse that more members wouldn’t make a difference to Vincent Tan.

The point about Ridsdale and the chance missed by the Trust to hit the ground running is so blindingly obvious (well to everyone but you that is). Whatever Ridsdale’s personal position was at the time the Trust could have shown great leadership if it had come out in open support of those who had been scammed by PR over the Golden Ticket fiasco, so much so 2500 (all potential Trust Members) marched in protest to the stadium. Surely you can see the opportunity you missed?

You always like a personal dig and low and behold there was one in your final paragraphs. I couldn’t stand for the Trust Board as I am not a member of the Trust any longer and I would only CONSIDER rejoining it if the old guard on the Trust Board was cleared out and some new blood with better leadership qualities (i.e. a few backbones) were elected instead.

Finally as you perfectly know the Trust Board is a complete closed shop due to the general low membership of the Trust. People like Tim Hartley and yourself will always get elected onto the TB as you know nearly everyone who is likely to vote and thus have an extreme advantage over any newcomers. Actually when you consider I was an unknown I did very well to get as many votes as I did so your snide remarks don’t wash as I stood on a point of principle not on a point of I’m going to get elected by my friends even though I have presided over a complete disaster.

1) I agreed that Trust membership numbers are disappointingly low. But you said "honestly they have only 300 members" which is neither honest nor accurate (to a degree of 100%). I referred to the membership numbers of other Championship clubs to illustrate that other similar organisations have the same problem in attracting members.

2) the Ridsdale issue you raised is far from "blindingly obvious". As I clearly stated the Trust board was well aware that Ridsdale would be kicked out of the club in the very near future without the march. However , a number of Trust board members took the personal choice to join that march as , I am sure , did many other individual Trust members.Criticism of the Golden Ticket plan was raised most vociferously directly with Ridsdale at meetings with the Trust and reports of those meetings published at the time for everyone to read.

3) there was no "personal dig" intended in my post.I merely pointed out that you had recently stood for Trust board election so you must have , at least at that time , agreed with its principles. And if you want existing members of the Trust board removed then rejoin , stand again on the principles you believe in and try and get elected in place of those you don`t agree with /think are doing a poor job.You really would be most welcome to stand on the issues you believe in (that`s why I asked you to remind me what they were so any good ideas you had can be implemented - I genuinely can`t remember so if you could remind me that would help).

4) your claim about the same old faces being involved also holds little water. There have been a lot of changes to the make up of the board since the Trust was established with several members leaving and several others being elected in their place. Like you , those "newcomers " would have been unknown to most of the Trust members at the time.

5) the Trust is very far from being the "closed shop" you accuse it of being.I can`t speak for Tim , but I personally don`t know very many individual Trust members and certainly not well enough to ask for their support in board elections. I have never actually asked for any such support. Like you did , and everyone else standing for election does , I just send a brief note of the basis on which I stand and leave it to individual members to decide whether they like or dislike that and vote accordingly. No-one standing for election has any involvement in the election procedure , including vote counting. Indeed no-one will have any idea of who votes or which member voted for which candidate as the process is carried out independently and confidentially - only the total number of votes cast for each candidate is published.


Keith

1) I agreed that Trust membership numbers are disappointingly low. But you said "honestly they have only 300 members" which is neither honest nor accurate (to a degree of 100%). I referred to the membership numbers of other Championship clubs to illustrate that other similar organisations have the same problem in attracting members.

2) the Ridsdale issue you raised is far from "blindingly obvious". As I clearly stated the Trust board was well aware that Ridsdale would be kicked out of the club in the very near future without the march. However , a number of Trust board members took the personal choice to join that march as , I am sure , did many other individual Trust members.Criticism of the Golden Ticket plan was raised most vociferously directly with Ridsdale at meetings with the Trust and reports of those meetings published at the time for everyone to read.

3) there was no "personal dig" intended in my post.I merely pointed out that you had recently stood for Trust board election so you must have , at least at that time , agreed with its principles. And if you want existing members of the Trust board removed then rejoin , stand again on the principles you believe in and try and get elected in place of those you don`t agree with /think are doing a poor job.You really would be most welcome to stand on the issues you believe in (that`s why I asked you to remind me what they were so any good ideas you had can be implemented - I genuinely can`t remember so if you could remind me that would help).

4) your claim about the same old faces being involved also holds little water. There have been a lot of changes to the make up of the board since the Trust was established with several members leaving and several others being elected in their place. Like you , those "newcomers " would have been unknown to most of the Trust members at the time.

5) the Trust is very far from being the "closed shop" you accuse it of being.I can`t speak for Tim , but I personally don`t know very many individual Trust members and certainly not well enough to ask for their support in board elections. I have never actually asked for any such support. Like you did , and everyone else standing for election does , I just send a brief note of the basis on which I stand and leave it to individual members to decide whether they like or dislike that and vote accordingly. No-one standing for election has any involvement in the election procedure , including vote counting. Indeed no-one will have any idea of who votes or which member voted for which candidate as the process is carried out independently and confidentially - only the total number of votes cast for each candidate is published.


Keith

OK I stand corrected you have a massive 600 members not 300. But frankly for an accountant it must be 'blindingly obvious' that either figure is pathetic and a reflection on the job done by the Trust Board.

You say I recently stood for election. Completely untrue I stood for election in 2010, 3 years ago which is not recent. (see its easy to be pedantic )

As I said you missed the boat with Ridsdale and you can repeat your feeble excuses as many times as you like, the absolute turth is the perception of CCFC supporters is that the Trust went missing over the issue and are therefore pathetic.

The Trust Board is jobs for the boys end of. There might have been the odd change but both you and Tim Hartley are there and that proves my point

Finally I am not going to join an organisation which is simply not fit for purpose. If you think the way you run it is fine then continue doing so and in 10 years time you'll still have 600 going on 300 members. That's not my problem that's yours.

1) I agreed that Trust membership numbers are disappointingly low. But you said "honestly they have only 300 members" which is neither honest nor accurate (to a degree of 100%). I referred to the membership numbers of other Championship clubs to illustrate that other similar organisations have the same problem in attracting members.

2) the Ridsdale issue you raised is far from "blindingly obvious". As I clearly stated the Trust board was well aware that Ridsdale would be kicked out of the club in the very near future without the march. However , a number of Trust board members took the personal choice to join that march as , I am sure , did many other individual Trust members.Criticism of the Golden Ticket plan was raised most vociferously directly with Ridsdale at meetings with the Trust and reports of those meetings published at the time for everyone to read.

3) there was no "personal dig" intended in my post.I merely pointed out that you had recently stood for Trust board election so you must have , at least at that time , agreed with its principles. And if you want existing members of the Trust board removed then rejoin , stand again on the principles you believe in and try and get elected in place of those you don`t agree with /think are doing a poor job.You really would be most welcome to stand on the issues you believe in (that`s why I asked you to remind me what they were so any good ideas you had can be implemented - I genuinely can`t remember so if you could remind me that would help).

4) your claim about the same old faces being involved also holds little water. There have been a lot of changes to the make up of the board since the Trust was established with several members leaving and several others being elected in their place. Like you , those "newcomers " would have been unknown to most of the Trust members at the time.

5) the Trust is very far from being the "closed shop" you accuse it of being.I can`t speak for Tim , but I personally don`t know very many individual Trust members and certainly not well enough to ask for their support in board elections. I have never actually asked for any such support. Like you did , and everyone else standing for election does , I just send a brief note of the basis on which I stand and leave it to individual members to decide whether they like or dislike that and vote accordingly. No-one standing for election has any involvement in the election procedure , including vote counting. Indeed no-one will have any idea of who votes or which member voted for which candidate as the process is carried out independently and confidentially - only the total number of votes cast for each candidate is published.


Keith

OK I stand corrected you have a massive 600 members not 300. But frankly for an accountant it must be 'blindingly obvious' that either figure is pathetic and a reflection on the job done by the Trust Board.

I CLEARLY STATED THAT 600 IS NOT A FIGURE I AM HAPPY WITH BUT I ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT IS ALSO A FIGURE THAT IS HIGHER THAM NEARLY ALL OTHER CHAMPIONSHIP CLUBS , MANY OF WHICH HAVE TRUSTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOINGBEEN GOING FOR FAR LONGER THAN OURS. SO WHILE I ACCEPT THAT THERE MAY WELL BE AREAS WHERE THE CCST BOARD COULD HAVE DONE BETTER IT IS CLEARLY NOT ALL DOWN TO THE JOB DONE BY THE CCST BOARD OR ELSE OTHER CLUBS WOULD HAVE HIGHER MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS.

You say I recently stood for election. Completely untrue I stood for election in 2010, 3 years ago which is not recent. (see its easy to be pedantic )

I THINK 3 YEARS AGO IS PRETTY RECENT. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE TRUST BOARD MAKE UP IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD AS WELL - AS SHOWN ON THE TRUST WEBSITE. DID YOU MANAGE TO RECALL THE CONTENTS OF YOUR ELECTION ADDRESS AS TO THE ISSUES YOU STOOD ON AT THE TIME?

As I said you missed the boat with Ridsdale and you can repeat your feeble excuses as many times as you like, the absolute turth is the perception of CCFC supporters is that the Trust went missing over the issue and are therefore pathetic.

WE DIDN`T GO MISSING AT ALL.HAVE YOU NOT READ MY EARLIER RESPONSE - RIDSDALE WAS GOING ANYWAY BUT SEVERAL TRUST BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDED THE MARCH YOU REFER TO WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC FEELING OF FANS ABOUT HIS ROLE BUT DIDN`T CAUSE HIM TO LEAVE - THE NEW INVESTORS HAD ALREADY MARKED HIS CARDS FOR DEPARTURE.IF THE AIM WAS TO GET RIDSDALE OUT , WHICH WAS ALREADY IN THE COURSE OF HAPPENING WITH OR WITHOUT A MARCH, WHAT ELSE DID YOU EXPECT THE TRUST TO DO?

The Trust Board is jobs for the boys end of. There might have been the odd change but both you and Tim Hartley are there and that proves my point

SIMPLY NOT TRUE - WHAT ARE YOU BASING SUCH A CLAIM ON?.AS I SAY ABOVE , THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CHANGES TO THE TRUST BOARD MAKE UP SINCE IT WAS SET UP - THE EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE ON THE TRUST WEBSITE- NOT JUST AN "ODD CHANGE". YOU MAY HAVE A PERSONAL GRIEVANCE FOR SOME REASON AGAINST MYSELF AND TIM AND THAT IS YOUR PEROGATIVE.IF THE TRUST MEMBERSHIP FEEL SIMILARLY THEN THEY WILL NOT RE-ELECT ME THIS YEAR AND QUITE RIGHTLY SO.

Finally I am not going to join an organisation which is simply not fit for purpose. If you think the way you run it is fine then continue doing so and in 10 years time you'll still have 600 going on 300 members. That's not my problem that's yours.

BUT YOU DID JOIN IT AND STAND FOR ELECTION TO ITS BOARD KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT ITS LEGAL CONSTITUTION AND AIMS WERE , SO HOW CAN YOU CLAIM IT IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE? THAT CONSTITUTION AND THOSE PURPOSES HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE YOU PUT YOURSELF FORWARD TO BE PART OF IT AND YOU MUST HAVE BEEN HAPPY WITH THEM AT THE TIME

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE WAY IT IS RUN IS "FINE" AND FULLY ACCEPT THAT IT CAN ALWAYS BE IMPROVED. BUT ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED IN IT AT BOARD LEVEL HAVE ALWAYS DONE THEIR BEST ON AN ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY BASIS.THAT BEST MAY NOT ALWAYS BE GOOD ENOUGH AND WILL CERTAINLY NEVER PLEASE ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME , BUT IT IS NOT THROUGH LACK OF TRYING.

I REPEAT , I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO FEELS THEY CAN DO IT BETTER TO STAND FOR ELECTION AND DO SO - ALL ASSISTANCE AND RECEIPT OF GOOD IDEAS WOULD BE MOST WELCOME.

Daya what i dont understand is how come come you used spend your hard earned cash watching city home and away yet have such contempt for us now ? Enlighten me please

1) I agreed that Trust membership numbers are disappointingly low. But you said "honestly they have only 300 members" which is neither honest nor accurate (to a degree of 100%). I referred to the membership numbers of other Championship clubs to illustrate that other similar organisations have the same problem in attracting members.

2) the Ridsdale issue you raised is far from "blindingly obvious". As I clearly stated the Trust board was well aware that Ridsdale would be kicked out of the club in the very near future without the march. However , a number of Trust board members took the personal choice to join that march as , I am sure , did many other individual Trust members.Criticism of the Golden Ticket plan was raised most vociferously directly with Ridsdale at meetings with the Trust and reports of those meetings published at the time for everyone to read.

3) there was no "personal dig" intended in my post.I merely pointed out that you had recently stood for Trust board election so you must have , at least at that time , agreed with its principles. And if you want existing members of the Trust board removed then rejoin , stand again on the principles you believe in and try and get elected in place of those you don`t agree with /think are doing a poor job.You really would be most welcome to stand on the issues you believe in (that`s why I asked you to remind me what they were so any good ideas you had can be implemented - I genuinely can`t remember so if you could remind me that would help).

4) your claim about the same old faces being involved also holds little water. There have been a lot of changes to the make up of the board since the Trust was established with several members leaving and several others being elected in their place. Like you , those "newcomers " would have been unknown to most of the Trust members at the time.

5) the Trust is very far from being the "closed shop" you accuse it of being.I can`t speak for Tim , but I personally don`t know very many individual Trust members and certainly not well enough to ask for their support in board elections. I have never actually asked for any such support. Like you did , and everyone else standing for election does , I just send a brief note of the basis on which I stand and leave it to individual members to decide whether they like or dislike that and vote accordingly. No-one standing for election has any involvement in the election procedure , including vote counting. Indeed no-one will have any idea of who votes or which member voted for which candidate as the process is carried out independently and confidentially - only the total number of votes cast for each candidate is published.


Keith

OK I stand corrected you have a massive 600 members not 300. But frankly for an accountant it must be 'blindingly obvious' that either figure is pathetic and a reflection on the job done by the Trust Board.

I CLEARLY STATED THAT 600 IS NOT A FIGURE I AM HAPPY WITH BUT I ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT IS ALSO A FIGURE THAT IS HIGHER THAM NEARLY ALL OTHER CHAMPIONSHIP CLUBS , MANY OF WHICH HAVE TRUSTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOINGBEEN GOING FOR FAR LONGER THAN OURS. SO WHILE I ACCEPT THAT THERE MAY WELL BE AREAS WHERE THE CCST BOARD COULD HAVE DONE BETTER IT IS CLEARLY NOT ALL DOWN TO THE JOB DONE BY THE CCST BOARD OR ELSE OTHER CLUBS WOULD HAVE HIGHER MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS.

You say I recently stood for election. Completely untrue I stood for election in 2010, 3 years ago which is not recent. (see its easy to be pedantic )

I THINK 3 YEARS AGO IS PRETTY RECENT. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE TRUST BOARD MAKE UP IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD AS WELL - AS SHOWN ON THE TRUST WEBSITE. DID YOU MANAGE TO RECALL THE CONTENTS OF YOUR ELECTION ADDRESS AS TO THE ISSUES YOU STOOD ON AT THE TIME?

As I said you missed the boat with Ridsdale and you can repeat your feeble excuses as many times as you like, the absolute turth is the perception of CCFC supporters is that the Trust went missing over the issue and are therefore pathetic.

WE DIDN`T GO MISSING AT ALL.HAVE YOU NOT READ MY EARLIER RESPONSE - RIDSDALE WAS GOING ANYWAY BUT SEVERAL TRUST BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDED THE MARCH YOU REFER TO WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC FEELING OF FANS ABOUT HIS ROLE BUT DIDN`T CAUSE HIM TO LEAVE - THE NEW INVESTORS HAD ALREADY MARKED HIS CARDS FOR DEPARTURE.IF THE AIM WAS TO GET RIDSDALE OUT , WHICH WAS ALREADY IN THE COURSE OF HAPPENING WITH OR WITHOUT A MARCH, WHAT ELSE DID YOU EXPECT THE TRUST TO DO?

The Trust Board is jobs for the boys end of. There might have been the odd change but both you and Tim Hartley are there and that proves my point

SIMPLY NOT TRUE - WHAT ARE YOU BASING SUCH A CLAIM ON?.AS I SAY ABOVE , THERE HAVE BEEN MANY CHANGES TO THE TRUST BOARD MAKE UP SINCE IT WAS SET UP - THE EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE ON THE TRUST WEBSITE- NOT JUST AN "ODD CHANGE". YOU MAY HAVE A PERSONAL GRIEVANCE FOR SOME REASON AGAINST MYSELF AND TIM AND THAT IS YOUR PEROGATIVE.IF THE TRUST MEMBERSHIP FEEL SIMILARLY THEN THEY WILL NOT RE-ELECT ME THIS YEAR AND QUITE RIGHTLY SO.

Finally I am not going to join an organisation which is simply not fit for purpose. If you think the way you run it is fine then continue doing so and in 10 years time you'll still have 600 going on 300 members. That's not my problem that's yours.

BUT YOU DID JOIN IT AND STAND FOR ELECTION TO ITS BOARD KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT ITS LEGAL CONSTITUTION AND AIMS WERE , SO HOW CAN YOU CLAIM IT IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE? THAT CONSTITUTION AND THOSE PURPOSES HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE YOU PUT YOURSELF FORWARD TO BE PART OF IT AND YOU MUST HAVE BEEN HAPPY WITH THEM AT THE TIME

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE WAY IT IS RUN IS "FINE" AND FULLY ACCEPT THAT IT CAN ALWAYS BE IMPROVED. BUT ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED IN IT AT BOARD LEVEL HAVE ALWAYS DONE THEIR BEST ON AN ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY BASIS.THAT BEST MAY NOT ALWAYS BE GOOD ENOUGH AND WILL CERTAINLY NEVER PLEASE ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME , BUT IT IS NOT THROUGH LACK OF TRYING.

I REPEAT , I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO FEELS THEY CAN DO IT BETTER TO STAND FOR ELECTION AND DO SO - ALL ASSISTANCE AND RECEIPT OF GOOD IDEAS WOULD BE MOST WELCOME.

Because Tony joined and stood for election does NOT mean he was happy about the legal constitution. Perhaps he stood with an agenda to change things.