Mariners Trust - Seat on GTFC Board

Quoted from sonik

Relocation,  Relocation,  Relocation.

UTM!

Flack jacket on!

Let's get on with it then!

Quoted from sonik

Relocation,  Relocation,  Relocation.

UTM!

Flack jacket on!

Yes. Didn't the club have to write off £500K after the last abortive attempt at looking at relocation. Which then lead to Mr. Fenty having to loan more money to the club.

Quoted from voice of reason

You really think a load of scunny/lincoln fans would bother to vote, just for a laugh...??? Seems a bit far fetched for me, they can't even be arsed with their own teams let alone ours...

Not probable, but definitely possible.

If the (for example) Tellywag printed a ballot slip and urged Town fans to post it back with their vote, who's to say there would be a true representation of Town fans...?!

I don't know the best solution.

Perhaps a voting slip per match day ticket (home fans only) is the answer? Hand one over to every person going through a turnstile?Anything but the situation that we have now found ourselves in.

I'm a trust member but I'm in 2 minds about the vote. (Not that I'm eligible to do so!) I was initially a "Yes" but the latest revelations regarding the place on the board has a huge impact on everyone that goes to games or claims to be a fan. Perhaps the true representation of fans would be to do the things I suggest above but then again, what business is it of anyone not a trust member to vote on how they deal with their shares?

I can see both sides of the argument which is quite rare on here....

Quoted from Biccys

I'm a trust member but I'm in 2 minds about the vote. (Not that I'm eligible to do so!) I was initially a "Yes" but the latest revelations regarding the place on the board has a huge impact on everyone that goes to games or claims to be a fan. Perhaps the true representation of fans would be to do the things I suggest above but then again, what business is it of anyone not a trust member to vote on how they deal with their shares?

I can see both sides of the argument which is quite rare on here....

I sympathise Biccys - difficult to know what's best! As I've said in another post, I think it might help to keep the two issues separate i.e.
1) whether / how well the Trust does / should represent supporters generally; and
2) which way (as a current Trust member) to vote

2) is the relevant issue here - there's a decision to be made, and it's got to be made by Trust members and with the circumstances as they are (regardless of point 1) and also regardless of how the circumstances arose) - it's the Trust as a legally constituted organisation that were given the shares

That's not to understate the importance of the vote, nor the impact of its consequences on the future of the Club - but it's the current situation, and it isn't going to change before Monday's deadline!

The 'seat on the Board' is another complicating factor - but it's important to remember that currently it's only been agreed in principle, with further negotiations and conditions to be met - it's not a foregone conclusion, and should it progress will bring issues and responsibilities that need careful consideration (including whether the Trust feels it yet has sufficient membership, clarity about role, and capability).

Another consideration is that there could be other options that have been / could be considered: the current proposal has arisen out of initial negotiations with John Fenty, but a No vote doesn't have to be seen as a rejection of him or lack of recognition of his concerns about shareholdings 'outside the Boardroom' - it is just a rejection of the current proposal (including its restrictive conditions). Whilst other options might not be as attractive to John Fenty, there could be ways of alleviating his immediate concerns without reducing the Trust's potential future influence.

but a No vote doesn't have to be seen as a rejection of him or lack of recognition of his concerns about shareholdings 'outside the Boardroom' - it is just a rejection of the current proposal (including its restrictive conditions). Whilst other options might not be as attractive to John Fenty, there could be ways of alleviating his immediate concerns without reducing the Trust's potential future influence.

thanks dave b Perfectly put and sums up the '3rd way option'. this will be put on the bottom of my voting slip

Quoted from forza ivano

but a No vote doesn't have to be seen as a rejection of him or lack of recognition of his concerns about shareholdings 'outside the Boardroom' - it is just a rejection of the current proposal (including its restrictive conditions). Whilst other options might not be as attractive to John Fenty, there could be ways of alleviating his immediate concerns without reducing the Trust's potential future influence.

thanks dave b Perfectly put and sums up the '3rd way option'. this will be put on the bottom of my voting slip

Interesting.

I think JF would very much see a 'No' vote as a rejection of him. He would undoubtedly take it as a kick in the gonads. Sensitive soul