Mariners Trust - Seat on GTFC Board

Quoted from pontoonlew

Who knows? I think the people who are against this are the people who are against Fenty as a whole. Think it's time people put aside their thoughts on Fenty and saw the bigger picture, because it's hampering people's views on it. If this was Parker I am sure a lot of you would have a different opinion.

Whatever anyone's view on Fenty, he is clearly very astute regarding the machinations of a boardroom, however this news should never have been delivered in what is (and I quote from Saturday's interview) 'a due, legal process'

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Which leads you to the next question..what is the benefit of a seat on the board if you don't have the shareholding & financial clout to go with it? You could argue that any chance to put forward the view of the fans is a good one but if you look at the vast range of opinions of people on here as a barometer, you could end up trying to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.

The benefit IMHO is it's a voice for supporters who have joined the Trust. I trust in the Trust and its members to decide what issues are important and need airing at board level - regardless of the number of opinions.

There has been much debate about our unsustainable budgets in recent weeks. Hopefully a Trust member on the board will also help to ensure that club is run responsibly and is financially sustainable.   I think it is much easier for any insight about the real state of our finances to be gleaned by having someone "on the inside".

As for financial clout hopefully a seat on the board for the Trust means many more fans join the Trust.   A bigger Trust with more annual renewals and with better attended fund raising events will one day yield more financial clout.

Rose-tinted? perhaps.  But we cannot knock it until we have tried it.

I would like to trust the Trust but on the basis of what I am seeing/hearing/reading, it looks like there are way too many spokesmen/women at present to be coherent.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I would like to trust the Trust but on the basis of what I am seeing/hearing/reading, it looks like there are way too many spokesmen/women at present to be coherent.

Chris Parker is the Chairman, Graham Precious is the designated communications person which will include interviews from time to time, a responsibility he shares with Chris Parker.

well, well, well.
this is a bit of a bolt from the blue - strange how, when the ballot was sent out, a place on the Board was a distant wish, something that might be considered in the future etc etc.
there then follows a number of people commenting on here that they'll be voting no, because they didn't feel we were getting anything in return for giving up 200,00 shares.many mentioned they felt the trust should have a place on the board, especially as they have far more to offer than messrs elsom and chapman.
then lo and behold a place on the board suddenly becomes available.
looks like the fishy really does run gtfc!!!

what do you think squarkus??

FFS is there no limit to how low Fenty will go?

What a disgraceful move to announce this in the middle of the 'shares gift' ballot.

Was he that afraid it would be a 'no' vote that he threw this in at the 11th hour?

Or is it yet another one of his 'if you agree to this I'll do that' arm twisting moves

Will the offer stand if it is a 'no' vote ? (highly unlikely after this outrageous 'sweetener') If it has been made dependent on the Trust members voting 'yes' it is totally out of order and shows the man for what he is, in my opinion, a manipulative stop-at-nothing operator

The vote must surely be null and void if there is a chance just one voter has been swayed by this underhand late announcement. It should be put to the membership again after the Trust has taken its place on the board

Quoted from Ipswin

FFS is there no limit to how low Fenty will go?

What a disgraceful move to announce this in the middle of the 'shares gift' ballot.

Was he that afraid it would be a 'no' vote that he threw this in at the 11th hour?

Or is it yet another one of his 'if you agree to this I'll do that' arm twisting moves

Will the offer stand if it is a 'no' vote ? (highly unlikely after this outrageous 'sweetener') If it has been made dependent on the Trust members voting 'yes' it is totally out of order and shows the man for what he is, in my opinion, a manipulative stop-at-nothing operator

The vote must surely be null and void if there is a chance just one voter has been swayed by this underhand late announcement. It should be put to the membership again after the Trust has taken its place on the board

I was trying to be slightly more tactful but THIS!

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I would like to trust the Trust but on the basis of what I am seeing/hearing/reading, it looks like there are way too many spokesmen/women at present to be coherent.

I'm interested to know your views on the potential benefits of having the Trust on the GTFC board I listed Codger. Agree or disagree?

As for coherence I guess this is subjective. Coherence can be hard to muster when you're relying on the board of GTFC to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

And it's easy to forget that the Trust board is totally voluntary in nature and there are going to be hiccups along the way.  This is a relatively new board who were immediately called on to deal with the biggest events in the Trust's short life.  Under those conditions I think they have dealt with things pretty coherently.

Your definition of spokesmen/women is unclear - do you mean to say there are too many Trust board members on the Fishy?

Quoted from Ipswin

FFS is there no limit to how low Fenty will go?

What a disgraceful move to announce this in the middle of the 'shares gift' ballot.

Was he that afraid it would be a 'no' vote that he threw this in at the 11th hour?

Or is it yet another one of his 'if you agree to this I'll do that' arm twisting moves

Will the offer stand if it is a 'no' vote ? (highly unlikely after this outrageous 'sweetener') If it has been made dependent on the Trust members voting 'yes' it is totally out of order and shows the man for what he is, in my opinion, a manipulative stop-at-nothing operator

The vote must surely be null and void if there is a chance just one voter has been swayed by this underhand late announcement. It should be put to the membership again after the Trust has taken its place on the board

i think you're probably right ipswin - it's both a carrot and stick proposal, and he's done it because he was getting nervous ; he obviously reads the fishy and indeed it has been suggested he even posts on here. the third way option - i.e. vote no, but that it could be a yes if the trust was offered more has got quite a bit of support on here, and after gobby's thread more and more interesting/difficult questions were being asked.i'll repeat the point i've made previously - jf desperately wants those shares and that control, and i thought that he'd have more to offer if pushed.
and i think i'd agree that the ballot process has been corrupted. a re-ballot would also keep up the pressure on him, which would be no bad thing

Who has actually made this offer to the Trust? John Fenty is not in a position to offer a seat on the board is he? as he himself is only a board member and not Chairman. Surely any new board members have to be approved by the shareholders at an AGM or EGM. What is a non-executive position? Is anything the Trust suggest to be thrown out by the rest of the board using what used to be the Trusts shares against them.

Although I would love to see the Trust have a proper seat on the board, I just see this as an attempt to sway the upcoming vote, and even with the Trust sitting in at board meetings etc. they will still actually be powerless to influence anything.