Question for Jon Wood/Mariners Trust

The statement that the club put out states that the board voted ‘unequivocally’ in support of Russell Slade. On this basis, I assume Jon Wood (the MT representative on the GTFC board) voted in support of Slade. Could either Jon Wood or someone from the Trust confirm if this was the case or not?

If Jon Wood did vote in favour of supporting Slade, on what basis did he make the decision to do this? Was anyone else at the Trust consulted about this, and did Jon Wood seek to gain an insight into the views of the Trust members, the very people he’s meant to represent on the GTFC board. Any clarification would be much appreciated.

Quoted from davmariner

The statement that the club put out states that the board voted ‘unequivocally’ in support of Russell Slade. On this basis, I assume Jon Wood (the MT representative on the GTFC board) voted in support of Slade. Could either Jon Wood or someone from the Trust confirm if this was the case or not?

Unequivocally is not the same as unanimously.

Quoted from davmariner

The statement that the club put out states that the board voted ‘unequivocally’ in support of Russell Slade. On this basis, I assume Jon Wood (the MT representative on the GTFC board) voted in support of Slade. Could either Jon Wood or someone from the Trust confirm if this was the case or not?

If Jon Wood did vote in favour of supporting Slade, on what basis did he make the decision to do this? Was anyone else at the Trust consulted about this, and did Jon Wood seek to gain an insight into the views of the Trust members, the very people he’s meant to represent on the GTFC board. Any clarification would be much appreciated.

He's selected to represent the Trust in matters on the board. They can't do a poll for every decision they have to make and to be fair they shouldn't. It's a bit like being an politician, you're given the nod from the people who have voted for you to make decisions on their behalf.
It's a tricky one because at the time of the statement feeling about a sacking was not quite as strong as it is now, in fact in a poll on here I think a fair chuck suggested he should be backed in the window and not sacked. I understand that now not many fans would be against a sacking. There is a real anti board feeling about at the minute and it is unfair for the Trust to be grouped in with that. The Trust are our best preforming director and I think it's time for them to distance themselves from the others.

Dav, I'll just copy and paste what I said to Friskney on another thread.

The statement used the word unequivocal which is not the same as unanimous. So someone may have not voted in favour of Slade. We won't know if and who because they don't publish the way board members vote.

Whichever way Jon Wood voted he had the mandate to make that decision as the duly appointed Trust board member.

So there's a lot of 'IFs' in this:

If there was a vote and;
If JW voted in favour of Slade and;
If that was the wrong decision (and there isn't unanimity about whether it would be wise to sack the manager at this point of the season - it being either too late or too soon, or too disruptive, or there being slim prospects of recruiting a better manager now, and that it's always a risk, and whether there's confidence in the right manager being appointed given the track record of you know who)

That's a tough decision and I'm happy for Jon Wood to take it. If he did.

Quoted from headingly_mariner

He's selected to represent the Trust in matters on the board. They can't do a poll for every decision they have to make and to be fair they shouldn't. It's a bit like being an politician, you're given the nod from the people who have voted for you to make decisions on their behalf.
It's a tricky one because at the time of the statement feeling about a sacking was not quite as strong as it is now, in fact in a poll on here I think a fair chuck suggested he should be backed in the window and not sacked. I understand that now not many fans would be against a sacking. There is a real anti board feeling about at the minute and it is unfair for the Trust to be grouped in with that. The Trust are our best preforming director and I think it's time for them to distance themselves from the others.

My post was not anti-trust at all so I’d suggest you read it again if that’s the impression you took.

It’s a point about accountability. What’s the point in Jon Wood being a Mariners Trust representative if he’s not answerable to anyone? Then he might as well just be a randomer on the GTFC board.

The only possible reason for not sacking him is the cost of doing so. But is this a consideration which a representative of the fans should take into account? Just asking, I am not sure what his remit is.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Dav, I'll just copy and paste what I said to Friskney on another thread.

The statement used the word unequivocal which is not the same as unanimous. So someone may have not voted in favour of Slade. We won't know if and who because they don't publish the way board members vote.

Whichever way Jon Wood voted he had the mandate to make that decision as the duly appointed Trust board member.

So there's a lot of 'IFs' in this:

If there was a vote and;
If JW voted in favour of Slade and;
If that was the wrong decision (and there isn't unanimity about whether it would be wise to sack the manager at this point of the season - it being either too late or too soon, or too disruptive, or there being slim prospects of recruiting a better manager now, and that it's always a risk, and whether there's confidence in the right manager being appointed given the track record of you know who)

That's a tough decision and I'm happy for Jon Wood to take it. If he did.

Hence why I’ve asked the question. The use of unequivocal suggests a decision was made without doubt.

I agree with Kingston. The Trust board member is in a very difficult position. He might be given sensitive information that he can't share, and has to make a decision on the spot, adjourning the meeting whilst he consults with the members is not an option.  But, I think he should explain to the trust how he voted and why, he has to be accountable

Quoted from realist

I agree with Kingston. The Trust board member is in a very difficult position. He might be given sensitive information that he can't share, and has to make a decision on the spot, adjourning the meeting whilst he consults with the members is not an option.  But, I think he should explain to the trust how he voted and why, he has to be accountable

Exactly as  the Board member of the Trust he has to ascertain he is representing the wishes and feelings of the Trust members.
As a Trust member no-one  asked me for my opinion,
I can see that thy may be issues of confidentiality in relation to Commercial Issues or Personnel Issues which are quite legitimate,but you cannot hide behind issues of confidentiality to not inform members of the Trust you represent how you voted on their behalf.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Exactly as  the Board member of the Trust he has to ascertain he is representing the wishes and feelings of the Trust members.
As a Trust member no-one  asked me for my opinion,
I can see that thy may be issues of confidentiality in relation to Commercial Issues or Personnel Issues which are quite legitimate,but you cannot hide behind issues of confidentiality to not inform members of the Trust you represent how you voted on their behalf.

I don't see consultations on decisions like backing for a manager as a viable exercise. Not everyone has t'internet so you'd be excluding them. He's appointed to make decisions.