Trust SGM - Notice of withdrawal

Withdrawl of SGM

As we have stated throughout the past 6–8 weeks, our only aim has been to strengthen the Trust. We thank the Board for confirming that we approached them amicably for a conversation on 8 September — a request that was set aside and ultimately left us with no option but to pursue an SGM to gain some traction.


Given the unwarranted hostility from the Board, we have chosen to withdraw our request for an SGM. Despite our repeated efforts to reach common ground, the current Board has shown itself to be unwelcoming of new members and intent on fostering division. The FSA highlighted to us numerous examples of many Trusts caught in internal conflict, who achieved little for years. We have no wish to see our Trust follow the same path.



While we remain confident that our request for an election would have succeeded, we see no value in pursuing it further under such conditions. We will have needed to work together as a group to achieve change, the current Board have made it clear they don't wish to pursue this as an option. A Trust consumed by internal conflict, rather than progress, helps no one.


Actions speak louder than words. While the Board has been quick to highlight its past achievements, progress over the last three years has slowed considerably. Aside from its commendable work on the Football Governance Bill, little of substance has been achieved. Attendance at FAB or FSA meetings is expected, not exceptional, and running a food bank twice a year is admirable but minimal given that there are eight current Board members to share the workload.





Many Board members publicly state that their main goal is to grow the Trust’s membership — particularly among younger supporters — yet:
The Trust has little or no presence on the major social media platforms used by 16–40-year-olds.

YouTube: Account with 2 Subscribers and 1 Video close to 4 years ago

TikTok: No account I could find

Instagram: 55 followers, 2 posts in 12 months

The recurring agenda item on membership growth has been removed from Board meetings. The trust must be more transparent with its membership and detail its successes and failures.

No membership drives are recorded in Trust minutes or on the website in the past five years.
Plans are often mentioned — results are not.

We hope this period prompts the Board to reflect on its practices and refocus on its purpose: to represent all members. The Trust is not a private club; it belongs to its membership.







We believe the Trust must now:

Hold a democratically contested election within six months — the first in five years.

Update the Society Rules to align with current FSA standards. We note it ticks many of the boxes currently missing, including the SGM process the board have noted they've struggled with.

Actively expand its membership, particularly among underrepresented groups.

Implement service-level agreements to ensure timely responses to members. Emails cannot go unanswered for weeks.

Broaden accessibility and engagement by regularly seeking members’ views and representing them through the FAB, rather than operating in isolation.



Follow due democratic process by allowing members to nominate and elect representatives to external committees such as the FAB — as other Cardiff City supporter bodies do.

We note the Board’s claim that our SGM proposal would have altered the Society Rules. Ironically, the wording mirrored that of the last two Trust elections published on the website. It appears there is one rule for the Board, and another for its members.





Finally, we thank the FSA for its support and its commitment to monitor and audit the Trust moving forward. We are confident they will be treated with greater respect and cooperation than we have been.

We hope the board will alter course in future and welcome new ideas and members with greater openness. The time for devisive communication and pushing an “us vs them” can come to an end. Now is the time for Trust to back up its words, with action and grow it. The last 6-8 weeks have shown it is possible, without much effort. Membership is the highest it’s been in years and without us even implementing our desired Social media strategy. We hope this is not wasted.

Thanks,
Rhys

Who was that board member who accused it of being a sinister takeover and pointing the finger at Annis?

The Trust has not grown at all in the last 5 years and we have this individual having a go at new members. Shocking behaviour and if anything he will be selective off the board come May.

This absolutely is the right thing to do.

Joining the Trust has not been a welcome experience. There have been accusations and hearsay and untruths flying about. Everything that was being said about new Members could really have been attributed to the Trust board themselves. New members have been nothing but professional, polite and businesslike.

There has certainly been no mud slinging from the new members perspective.

Even now, we wish the Trust board and its members the strength required to challenge those who run our club, remind them that they are always keeping the seat warm for any future owners, and that they are stewards of the club on behalf of the supporters.

The number of communications we have received form the Trust over and above details of Fridays meeting has been astonishing on the basis that, prior to the increase in membership, we had precious little before hand. Although a positive change, why suddenly the change? have they been shocked into action?

Lets hope the communication from now on from the Trust is far more welcoming. Numbers have increased more in the last month or so than the Trust has achieved in years.

The Trust should continue its current enthusiasm and use its strengthened membership to bring the owners of the club to task, rather than give the impression that it is a cosy relationship.

I look forward to a newly invigorated Trust

This absolutely is the right thing to do.

Joining the Trust has not been a welcome experience. There have been accusations and hearsay and untruths flying about. Everything that was being said about new Members could really have been attributed to the Trust board themselves. New members have been nothing but professional, polite and businesslike.

There has certainly been no mud slinging from the new members perspective.

Even now, we wish the Trust board and its members the strength required to challenge those who run our club, remind them that they are always keeping the seat warm for any future owners, and that they are stewards of the club on behalf of the supporters.

The number of communications we have received form the Trust over and above details of Fridays meeting has been astonishing on the basis that, prior to the increase in membership, we had precious little before hand. Although a positive change, why suddenly the change? have they been shocked into action?

Lets hope the communication from now on from the Trust is far more welcoming. Numbers have increased more in the last month or so than the Trust has achieved in years.

The Trust should continue its current enthusiasm and use its strengthened membership to bring the owners of the club to task, rather than give the impression that it is a cosy relationship.

I look forward to a newly invigorated Trust

Well said Jonny. The Trust are quick to pick up that the owner is autocratic and doesn’t listen to anyone outside of his small circle. And yet here they are following the exact same play book. I hope this gives them a kick and they realise the time to nod along and smile is over.

Who was that board member who accused it of being a sinister takeover and pointing the finger at Annis?

The Trust has not grown at all in the last 5 years and we have this individual having a go at new members. Shocking behaviour and if anything he will be selective off the board come May.

It was the Chairman Keith Morgan and I as a Trust Member believe he should resign. He has shown he does not want it to grow and put every obstacle in the way of having an election ages ago.Saying wrong PO Box, email, accountants where all the originals letters were sent, yet were on the Trust site?
I feel he is a disgrace to Cardiff fans and complete fraud. I am on both sites and he writes under the name Upthebluebirds which was made up about a month ago and writes exactly the same as himself Keith Morgan and backed up by a school teacher Nathaniel Freeman aka Natman.
They are a closed shop and need to be reported and investigated in to the monies and a points and how it’s run.

CantonEndBlue well said and written. They only have eight board members, why not twelve like other Trusts?

Interesting to read all this, excuse my ignorance but does this mean it was an absolute waste of time joining now and nothing will change?

Interesting to read all this, excuse my ignorance but does this mean it was an absolute waste of time joining now and nothing will change?

That probably depends on the attitude of the Trust moving forward. If the push to grow the Trust, as they should, that will come with more members and more challenge to their power. If they choose to sit on it, they’ll likely fall into non-existence and something else will fill the void. Short term, probably no, but I think it’s opened people’s eyes to a lot of things they’ve hidden. If not us this time, someone else will follow suit in future I’m sure.

Interesting to read all this, excuse my ignorance but does this mean it was an absolute waste of time joining now and nothing will change?

That probably depends on the attitude of the Trust moving forward. If the push to grow the Trust, as they should, that will come with more members and more challenge to their power. If they choose to sit on it, they’ll likely fall into non-existence and something else will fill the void. Short term, probably no, but I think it’s opened people’s eyes to a lot of things they’ve hidden. If not us this time, someone else will follow suit in future I’m sure.

Cheers, I think we could safely assume that they will continue they way they have

Very well written Rhys and agree with everything said.

I have to say Rhys well said and I agree 100% with everything you’ve said and you only tried to help and be diplomatic and as another one said sadly it’s a closed shop.
I was one of the original Members yet they have not moved forward ever since many including myself left when they Voted for the Despicable Rebrand

It’s a shame they have tried to stop you and Jonny joining their Board I feel you two would have been great Assets to them and Our Fan Base.

Interesting to read all this, excuse my ignorance but does this mean it was an absolute waste of time joining now and nothing will change?

Not a waste of time joining but the vote on friday would have been a waste of time due to the trust stacking the cards heavily in their favour.

Interesting to read all this, excuse my ignorance but does this mean it was an absolute waste of time joining now and nothing will change?

That probably depends on the attitude of the Trust moving forward. If the push to grow the Trust, as they should, that will come with more members and more challenge to their power. If they choose to sit on it, they’ll likely fall into non-existence and something else will fill the void. Short term, probably no, but I think it’s opened people’s eyes to a lot of things they’ve hidden. If not us this time, someone else will follow suit in future I’m sure.

Cheers, I think we could safely assume that they will continue they way they have

Not for long.

Well said Rhys + Jonny, it's been an eye opener over the last 2 months to see how the trust has/is being run, just like a Gentlemans club. To go ahead with fridays vote would have been no point due how they've stacked the cards in their favour, that's fine, it just makes us more determind to make sure the trust is for ALL Cardiff fans not just the selected few. We are a badly run football club with a horrendous owner and two freeloaders at the helm but the trust do or say nothing. Finally to the trust committee, change your attitude and direction, work closer with old and NEW members for the benefit of Cardiff City or you'll be moved on.

I have been monitoring what the Trust and fans have been saying the last couple of months,they are dividing the fans to stay in with the club and have a little bit off power and for me they seem corrupt as f**k and need an authority to investigate them all on their board. That Mike Spears all he has done attack any new members and call them hostile, shocking behaviour from a Vice Chairman, shocking. I might join so I can attend one of their meetings.

I have been monitoring what the Trust and fans have been saying the last couple of months,they are dividing the fans to stay in with the club and have a little bit off power and for me they seem corrupt as f**k and need an authority to investigate them all on their board. That Mike Spears all he has done attack any new members and call them hostile, shocking behaviour from a Vice Chairman, shocking. I might join so I can attend one of their meetings.

And the chairman Keith Morgan now calling himself UptheBluebirds yes you can join,but that’s it then,the eight board members is a closed shop to the members,they do need investigating,I can see through all this they have done themselves no favours at all,in fact opened a can of worms and I can see the corruption their with them on their board.

This is how I see it as a closed shop with this current Trust board.

There are spare seats on the board, in fact 4 spare seats,which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a very hostile reaction to these new members,which is very unfair as no proof has been put out against them.

The Trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surely the Trust Board would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.

I think you new members should bide your time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats available. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the Trust.

I have a question?

The Trust board would not answer it?


Why would you want to stop an election taking place and not vote against it. Yet strongly condemn it and make out fellow City fans were being hostile? What did they do that was hostile?

I sent this last week to the Trust after their email on the meeting.

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Biased Communication to Trust Members

Dear Trust,

I am writing to formally raise a concern regarding a recent message circulated to Trust members about the upcg special meeting on October 24. The message included language indicating that “the board is strongly opposing the motion,” which I believe constitutes a biased communication.

As this message appears to have been sent or endorsed through an official Trust channel, it may unduly influence members and undermine the expectation of neutrality in Trust communications, especially where board members have a direct interest in the outcome.

I respectfully request that the Trust review this matter, clarify communication protocols to ensure impartiality, and issue a neutral reminder to members regarding the vote.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Sincerely,
Mr Jason Brown 

This is how I see it as a closed shop with this current Trust board.

There are spare seats on the board, in fact 4 spare seats,which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a very hostile reaction to these new members,which is very unfair as no proof has been put out against them.

The Trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surely the Trust Board would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.

I think you new members should bide your time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats available. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the Trust.

We were also told that anyone who joined after the date of notification of the meeting would not be allowed to vote. Then, following a small campaign by an individual, the Trust moved the goalposts to the date of the proxy email — effectively stacking the deck in their favour. This was compounded by the email sent to members, which appeared to guide them on how to vote.

I assume come May or whenever it is then everyone can vote

We were also told that anyone who joined after the date of notification of the meeting would not be allowed to vote. Then, following a small campaign by an individual, the Trust moved the goalposts to the date of the proxy email — effectively stacking the deck in their favour. This was compounded by the email sent to members, which appeared to guide them on how to vote.

Yes all to confuse, leaving things then at the last minute changing things up,i had it in my e'mails.

I assume come May or whenever it is then everyone can vote

I was wondering about that too, as the numbers don’t seem to quite add up. Will there be four positions open for election this year, or are three of the current eight board members required to stand for re-election under the rules? If it’s the latter, that could mean seven new members joining the board alongside five existing ones — effectively giving the new members a controlling interest. That seems significant and really needs to be clarified before the elections take place.

How many of the 350 members are renewals effective from season 2025/26 , that’s what I’m wondering, otherwise , a significant number that has been quoted would be classified as expired and would not qualify for any key voting privileges

I assume come May or whenever it is then everyone can vote

Correct as long as you are over 16, also being the AGM rules are far clearer and the goalposts can't be moved, it's virtually a head to head vote.

How many of the 350 members are renewals effective from season 2025/26 , that’s what I’m wondering, otherwise , a significant number that has been quoted would be classified as expired and would not qualify for any key voting privileges

The 350 is what the trust has managed to achieve over many years, (a pathetic amount for a club of our size) over the last couple of months we have added a substantial amount of new members.

It speaks volumes that everyone on here is pro the movement and anti how the Trust is currently run.

Normally we all disagree on all sorts of things about the club but not on this.

That says a lot and the people at the top of the Trust should reflect on that.

It speaks volumes that everyone on here is pro the movement and anti how the Trust is currently run.

Normally we all disagree on all sorts of things about the club but not on this.

That says a lot and the people at the top of the Trust should reflect on that.

Ned, i'd like to see a lot more who use this forum join the trust and have their say.

It speaks volumes that everyone on here is pro the movement and anti how the Trust is currently run.

Normally we all disagree on all sorts of things about the club but not on this.

That says a lot and the people at the top of the Trust should reflect on that.

Ned, i'd like to see a lot more who use this forum join the trust and have their say.

I've been a Trust member for years, never on the Board and rarely involved as I have far more priorities personally and for work - it is a shame that what appears to be fairly deliberate obfuscation has taken place, certainly that is the perception I have taken from the communications I have received and seen.

It is a shame as the Trust itself is a very worthwhile organisation and has delivered some meaningful positives over the years - it is by its nature going to be limited in its scope vis a vis changing the football club.

Keith Morgan is an expert in football finance - I look forward to his analysis of CCFC accounts every year. I don't know him personally, but as Chair I would ask him to think carefully how this plays out. The Trust Board have been scaremongering and that was the wrong strategy - better to offer 4 vacant Board places to reps of the new intake and let next May elections play out. Instead we have this nonsense about sinister this and blah blah that - it is not appropriate.

Anyhow - CTID