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.

There are some startling assumptions being made in this thread.

For the record:- Jon Wood is entirely accountable to the Trust Board and reports back on a very regular basis. It is not practicable or desired for the Trust Board to mandate our representative to every single meeting. When you elect a representative you do so on the understanding that they will listen to the arguments put forward and then vote accordingly on any occasion where it is necessary. This is what happens the world over in representative democracies. I'm confident that I can speak for the whole of the Trust Board when I say that we are fortunate that we have a person of Jon's integrity representing us in the Boardroom of GTFC.

EDIT:- Thank you Kingston and Headingley for making the point quicker and better than I have.

Quoted from barralad

There are some startling assumptions being made in this thread.

For the record:- Jon Wood is entirely accountable to the Trust Board and reports back on a very regular basis. It is not practicable or desired for the Trust Board to mandate our representative to every single meeting. When you elect a representative you do so on the understanding that they will listen to the arguments put forward and then vote accordingly on any occasion where it is necessary. This is what happens the world over in representative democracies. I'm confident that I can speak for the whole of the Trust Board when I say that we are fortunate that we have a person of Jon's integrity representing us in the Boardroom of GTFC.

EDIT:- Thank you Kingston and Headingley for making the point quicker and better than I have.

Not sure that I see the board of GTFC as a democracy.

LH said:

"I accept that although I know myself and others have offered help in the past and haven’t heard anything for a while.

As we’re seeing on a different thread now though a Trust board member who has been nominated for the club board position by his colleagues (if I remember correctly) is coming under fire for making/not making a decision at club board level. Surely this is a prime example of why the Trust board should be elected? So that the fans opinion can be truly measured. I can see why some on social media get a bit arsey about it but I also accept that there might be apathy in taking part in votes.

It’s not something for immediate change but maybe something to look at in the future. I’d also like to see straw polls taken for things like manager approval and club decisions so that the trust can feed back stats to back up statements on behalf of the fans to the club."

In effect Trust Board members are elected. It's just that there's no opposition! It will only change when more people stand for office. Very few people even bother to attained open forums let alone put themselves forward for office. You could say we get the Trust we deserve.

It's bad if no one has got back to you about offers of help given that there's lots that could be done.

Kingston in reply to your response to my question you stated that you got your mandate from the members,well how did you arrive at the members decision re backing Slade,was there any consultation?.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Kingston in reply to your response to my question you stated that you got your mandate from the members,well how did you arrive at the members decision re backing Slade,was there any consultation?.

Friskney. I am not a member of the Trust board. Just an ordinary member. I didn't state that I got my mandate from anyone!

Like I said though, it's a representative democracy. We elect our representatives to take decisions on our behalf in situations where the facts aren't known in advance and the timing isn't always convenient. There is no onus on them to make a decision that accords with members' views. They're there to use their judgement.

Also as I said we don't even know if there was a vote and if so which way he voted.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. There are lots of things wrong with the club but IMO this isn't one of them. It's like a murder scene but your focusing on a cyclist riding without lights.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Not sure that I see the board of GTFC as a democracy.

Really? Well all I can suggest is that you take a look at the sites of Trusts the length and breadth of the country where fans through those Trusts are excluded from any say in the running of their club.
Neither you nor I have any idea as to the discussions that take place at GTFC Board level before votes are taken. There seems to be a popular assumption which has almost become an urban myth that the Board are merely there to rubber stamp J.Fs views, which in the absence of proof,  if nothing else is actually a slight on the characters of all Board members. If, of course you can provide evidence I'll retract these comments with a fulsome apology.

To be and effective orginisation representing its member the Trust must continually reflect on its performances and assess as to whether it is achieving it's aims and objectives. The Trust can achieve a lot but it is vital it has credibility amongst the fan base,from what I hear at Blundel Park on a Saturday this could be significantly improved.

I am truly perplexed anyone could construe that as being negative.

With the current shareholdings nothing else can happen except a rubber stamping exercise. It is a Fenty dictatorship regardless of what the other board members say or how they vote.

Quoted from barralad

There are some startling assumptions being made in this thread.

For the record:- Jon Wood is entirely accountable to the Trust Board and reports back on a very regular basis. It is not practicable or desired for the Trust Board to mandate our representative to every single meeting. When you elect a representative you do so on the understanding that they will listen to the arguments put forward and then vote accordingly on any occasion where it is necessary. This is what happens the world over in representative democracies. I'm confident that I can speak for the whole of the Trust Board when I say that we are fortunate that we have a person of Jon's integrity representing us in the Boardroom of GTFC.

EDIT:- Thank you Kingston and Headingley for making the point quicker and better than I have.

So did Jon Wood vote to support Russell Slade?

No one is saying that Jon Wood be mandated for every single meeting, but given that this particular vote was one of a significant magnitude I think most people would deem it appropriate to have either consulted on such a decision or at the very least, explain his actions.

After all, if members didn’t pay their subs for MT membership and if fans didn’t purchase drinks from the bars, there would be no MT representative on the GTFC board.

Your comparison to politics and representative democracies is slightly odd given (and I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that the trust board and representative on the GTFC board  are not elected by the membership. In any case, there are occasions whereby politicians/democratically elected individuals have their performance reviewed to see if their actions are still deemed in the interests of its electorate/members.

Quoted from barralad

There are some startling assumptions being made in this thread.

For the record:- Jon Wood is entirely accountable to the Trust Board and reports back on a very regular basis. It is not practicable or desired for the Trust Board to mandate our representative to every single meeting. When you elect a representative you do so on the understanding that they will listen to the arguments put forward and then vote accordingly on any occasion where it is necessary. This is what happens the world over in representative democracies. I'm confident that I can speak for the whole of the Trust Board when I say that we are fortunate that we have a person of Jon's integrity representing us in the Boardroom of GTFC.

EDIT:- Thank you Kingston and Headingley for making the point quicker and better than I have.

I dont normally bother with red crosses but in the interest of good debate would the two red crossers (to date) of this post be interested in explaining what it is about the principles of representative democracy they don't agree with?

Quoted from barralad

I dont normally bother with red crosses but in the interest of good debate would the two red crossers (to date) of this post be interested in explaining what it is about the principles of representative democracy they don't agree with?

Yes see above. You can’t call yourself a representative democracy if the members don’t elect the MT board/MT representative on the GTFC board.

Quoted from barralad

There are some startling assumptions being made in this thread.

For the record:- Jon Wood is entirely accountable to the Trust Board and reports back on a very regular basis. It is not practicable or desired for the Trust Board to mandate our representative to every single meeting. When you elect a representative you do so on the understanding that they will listen to the arguments put forward and then vote accordingly on any occasion where it is necessary. This is what happens the world over in representative democracies. I'm confident that I can speak for the whole of the Trust Board when I say that we are fortunate that we have a person of Jon's integrity representing us in the Boardroom of GTFC.

EDIT:- Thank you Kingston and Headingley for making the point quicker and better than I have.

Cannot you not see the irony of this post,the issue is if there was transparency people would not be able to 'make startling assumptions'

Also, why just not tell us how Jon Wood voted?

I take it that The Trust still has shares in the club?

Where is FFS when you need him!

News flash from Fenty towers, in the interest of democracy Mr Fenty has accepted 2 extra positions onto the clubs board, a Mr Putin (Moscow fans representative) and Mr Kim Jong Un (North Korea representative)

Quoted from davmariner

So did Jon Wood vote to support Russell Slade?

No one is saying that Jon Wood be mandated for every single meeting, but given that this particular vote was one of a significant magnitude I think most people would deem it appropriate to have either consulted on such a decision or at the very least, explain his actions.

After all, if members didn’t pay their subs for MT membership and if fans didn’t purchase drinks from the bars, there would be no MT representative on the GTFC board.

Your comparison to politics and representative democracies is slightly odd given (and I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that the trust board and representative on the GTFC board  are not elected by the membership. In any case, there are occasions whereby politicians/democratically elected individuals have their performance reviewed to see if their actions are still deemed in the interests of its electorate/members.

The Trust Board are elected and one third under the constitution stand for re-election annually. Notification of the upcoming AGM is made giving due notice to anybody wishing to stand for election time to prepare their bid. No organisation can be held responsible for the fact that its members are in general pretty apathetic The GTFC Board post is elected by the Trust Board so by virtue by the members.
This is going to go down like a lead balloon but enshrined in any organisation is a premise called "Collective Responsibility" which means (and apologies if this comes across as in any way patronising it truly isn't meant to) that any debate goes on at the time of the meeting and when the decision is made all members have to support that decision publicly. It is something that was enshrined in me when I became a trade union convenor 30 odd years ago and a member of the Labour Party even longer ago.
Others have already said that it was impossible to get a truly representative view of what ALL members were thinking between Saturday and the Monday.

Seems to be open season on everybody associated with GTFC at the moment. I don't remember anyone questioning the Trust until recently when things have gone wrong on the pitch. When they had an open meeting in the Trust bar a few weeks back, no-one turned up. Now suddenly, people are taking umbrage at the Trust representatives part in a decision made by a board of five people. We have no idea how he voted, or even if there was a vote at all. I'm a member of the Trust and i'm happy for the Trust rep on the board to make decisions on behalf of the Trust.

Some people won't be happy until the board have gone, the Trust has gone, the manager has gone, the assistant manager has gone and half the first team squad. The blame game is getting beyond ridiculous.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Cannot you not see the irony of this post,the issue is if there was transparency people would not be able to 'make startling assumptions'

No I cannot and I refer you to my previous reply. As someone steeped in the public sector you will be well aware of the term "Collective Responsibility".

Did not red cross you Ian but for the sake of debate,and not wishing to cast any aspirations on the hard work and integrity on any members of the Trust,but in what Universe can you call self-appointed members of the Trust Board who assume that their views are aligned to those of membership  a Representative Democracy.

Sadly you are quite right about apathy and people willing to step forward,but a representative democracy you are not.

Quoted from barralad

No I cannot and I refer you to my previous reply. As someone steeped in the public sector you will be well aware of the term "Collective Responsibility".

As someone steeped in the machinations of very senior members of a council,I am also aware of Public Interest Immunity I have the scars to prove it.

As I said on another thread, the Trust needs more members, more points of contact and higher levels of participation in it's own meetings before any of us can be too critical.
Had a pint and a brief chat with two fans in the Trust Bar before the game but there appears to be little mechanism for polite and informal exchanges with our reps.

Quoted from ginnywings

Seems to be open season on everybody associated with GTFC at the moment. I don't remember anyone questioning the Trust until recently when things have gone wrong on the pitch. When they had an open meeting in the Trust bar a few weeks back, no-one turned up. Now suddenly, people are taking umbrage at the Trust representatives part in a decision made by a board of five people. We have no idea how he voted, or even if there was a vote at all. I'm a member of the Trust and i'm happy for the Trust rep on the board to make decisions on behalf of the Trust.

Some people won't be happy until the board have gone, the Trust has gone, the manager has gone, the assistant manager has gone and half the first team squad. The blame game is getting beyond ridiculous.

At last a sensible comment on the matter-how far is the blame game going to rumble on?
At least turn up for meetings and support the trust before criticising them.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Did not red cross you Ian but for the sake of debate,and not wishing to cast any aspirations on the hard work and integrity on any members of the Trust,but in what Universe can you call self-appointed members of the Trust Board who assume that their views are aligned to those of membership  a Representative Democracy.

Sadly you are quite right about apathy and people willing to step forward,but a representative democracy you are not.

1. As I've clearly demonstrated we aren't self appointed
2. The ongoing survey ticks all boxes regarding membership engagement. When we've picked our way through the myriad of different views about the way forward we'll be able to construct a plan to take the Trust forward in line with the wishes of hopefully a majority.

Quoted from ginnywings

Seems to be open season on everybody associated with GTFC at the moment. I don't remember anyone questioning the Trust until recently when things have gone wrong on the pitch. When they had an open meeting in the Trust bar a few weeks back, no-one turned up. Now suddenly, people are taking umbrage at the Trust representatives part in a decision made by a board of five people. We have no idea how he voted, or even if there was a vote at all. I'm a member of the Trust and i'm happy for the Trust rep on the board to make decisions on behalf of the Trust.

Some people won't be happy until the board have gone, the Trust has gone, the manager has gone, the assistant manager has gone and half the first team squad. The blame game is getting beyond ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that the uncertainty regarding the Trust's role can be dated back to the point when many found out, for the first time, that the Trust paid for a seat on the board. This then caused the question as to whether it was fair to pay for a seat on the board whilst the other 3 members owned a collective £5000 worth of shares between them.

Quoted from Croxton

As I said on another thread, the Trust needs more members, more points of contact and higher levels of participation in it's own meetings before any of us can be too critical.
Had a pint and a brief chat with two fans in the Trust Bar before the game but there appears to be little mechanism for polite and informal exchanges with our reps.

Most Trust Board members (wearing our fetching black polo shirts can be found in one of the bars pre-match. Please come and say hello. I don't know where you sit but I'm in the Pontoon Row E . I'm always willing to talk to anyone. It may actually be preferable to watching the game.
We did actually have a "surgery" before  the FGR bar.. It was advertised but there weren't any takers. If I was cynical I might say that was because we'd won our two previous games.

Quoted from MuddyWaters

I'm pretty sure that the uncertainty regarding the Trust's role can be dated back to the point when many found out, for the first time, that the Trust paid for a seat on the board. This then caused the question as to whether it was fair to pay for a seat on the board whilst the other 3 members owned a collective £5000 worth of shares between them.

Doesn't that just show that no-one was taking any interest in the Trust, because i have known that since the start and i haven't attended any meetings? It's not like it was hidden. Suddenly, they are coming under increasing scrutiny, when until recently, no one gave them a second thought.

Quoted from ginnywings

Doesn't that just show that no-one was taking any interest in the Trust, because i have known that since the start and i haven't attended any meetings? It's not like it was hidden. Suddenly, they are coming under increasing scrutiny, when until recently, no one gave them a second thought.

If I'm honest, I never gave it a thought. I suppose I thought the seat on the board was part of the shares vote thing.

Quoted from barralad

The Trust Board are elected and one third under the constitution stand for re-election annually. Notification of the upcoming AGM is made giving due notice to anybody wishing to stand for election time to prepare their bid. No organisation can be held responsible for the fact that its members are in general pretty apathetic The GTFC Board post is elected by the Trust Board so by virtue by the members.
This is going to go down like a lead balloon but enshrined in any organisation is a premise called "Collective Responsibility" which means (and apologies if this comes across as in any way patronising it truly isn't meant to) that any debate goes on at the time of the meeting and when the decision is made all members have to support that decision publicly. It is something that was enshrined in me when I became a trade union convenor 30 odd years ago and a member of the Labour Party even longer ago.
Others have already said that it was impossible to get a truly representative view of what ALL members were thinking between Saturday and the Monday.

So just to be clear, the Trust board is elected by the whole membership? Anyway the point of this thread wasn’t to have a dig at the Trust it was to try and get answers about Jon Wood who has a say on behalf of the fans but seemingly those fans aren’t able to hold him to account over his actions.

I don’t believe the issue of collective responsibility is reasonable grounds for lack of transparency. When it suited, for example, on the issue of b teams it was pretty clear how the representative voted.

I think it’s clear from the reaction on social media and on here that people are starting to realise that the Trust is important in terms of the longevity of the club. Like myself, many are frustrated at the perception of the Trust going along with the wishes of Fenty.

Quoted from davmariner

So just to be clear, the Trust board is elected by the whole membership? Anyway the point of this thread wasn’t to have a dig at the Trust it was to try and get answers about Jon Wood who has a say on behalf of the fans but seemingly those fans aren’t able to hold him to account over his actions.

I don’t believe the issue of collective responsibility is reasonable grounds for lack of transparency. When it suited, for example, on the issue of b teams it was pretty clear how the representative voted.

I think it’s clear from the reaction on social media and on here that people are starting to realise that the Trust is important in terms of the longevity of the club. Like myself, many are frustrated at the perception of the Trust going along with the wishes of Fenty.

I could be wrong here but from memory I don't think the result of voting on the Checkatrade issue was ever made public. We did have the time to ask for views about the issue from members. I still have somewhere nearly 200 responses which helped formulate our position. We made public our opposition to the plan.

I think those that sit in the main stand should start thinking about their role in the demise of GTFC and the poor performances on the pitch. It is clear to me, as a ST holder in the Upper Findus that their failure to get 100% behind RS is contributing to our lack of goals and I would like to know how many of them are responsible for booing our own players when re-entering the field of play for the second half.

To ensure transparency nobody in row L seats 44 to the other end in anyway contributed to this act. Questions will similarly be put to those sitting in the Pontoon stand in due course.

Whilst we are at it do the Programme sellers actually support town or just do it for the money? If the latter we should ask the Trust to seek volunteers to carry out this most valuable of club roles but only asking the membership for their views.

Quoted from barralad

.
Others have already said that it was impossible to get a truly representative view of what ALL members were thinking between Saturday and the Monday.

I would have said anybody at Blundell Park at 16.45 on Sat could gauged what the majority view was.

Has it ever made any difference having fans on the board? It's just a box-ticking exercise to say the board have listened.

Quoted from BraStrap

Has it ever made any difference having fans on the board? It's just a box-ticking exercise to say the board have listened.

What an absolute crock of shite.i' lol leave others to tell you all their achievements.
I think this thread shows the depressingly low level of general knowledge on the political/ democratic make up of this country.
Firstly the board is just like any parish council. My village has about 500 people in it, unless there is a development being mooted there are only about 10 people who turn up to watch the half dozen councillors perform their democratic duties. We are fortunate to have just enough councillors, they could do with more.they often ask but very rarely does anyone put themselves forward. However everyone knows who's on the council and they're regularly mooned about over a pint in the pilgrim. If more people put themselves forward then there would be an election, but it never happens coz nobody does.
Does all this sound familiar? And this happens in nearly every parish council in the country.
Those of you criticising and questioning the boards representative should familiarise yourself with the difference between a representative and a delegate.
At the same time you might also want to look up unanimous and unequivocal and see that they are two quite different things
Having done your research then may I suggest that as you care so much about the trust then you actually get yourself a bit more involved.you never know we might even end up having an election for the trust board, but I won't hold my breath


Ps one final thought. Do we know who actually drafted that club statement? I say that because are we all 100% certain (given the appalling grammar and English in previous announcements) that they actually took the time to consider if unequivocal was truly the word they were looking for? Correct use of English and the subtleties of meanings of certain words are not exactly strong points when it comes to statements from the club. ( only last week we were informed that Luton weren't 'inflammable' and that's from a bloody ex schoolteacher!)

Quoted from friskneymariner

I would have said anybody at Blundell Park at 16.45 on Sat could gauged what the majority view was.

You are probably right but it would have been too late then for a Board meeting that took place three weeks ago.
I would have expected a spike of people filling in the survey but it didn't materialise. Perhaps people really have just had enough.

Quoted from barralad

You are probably right but it would have been too late then for a Board meeting that took place three weeks ago.
I would have expected a spike of people filling in the survey but it didn't materialise. Perhaps people really have just had enough.

Had enough, general malaise, frustration - call it what you like Ian, there doesn't seem any positive way forward. The GTFC board have developed a siege mentality where they are right and everyone else is wrong, unless your name is Russell Slade or, at a push, Shaun Harvey. They have dissed Nigel Lowther, Matt Dean, the fans at Stevenage and it will, if allowed to continue, kill the club. I don't know John Fenty, and I don't particularly want to, but he doesn't seem to be the sort of person who will offer an olive branch to the fans to make things better - and therein lies the problem.

If he did offer an olive branch, no doubt some would say it's the wrong shape, or came from the wrong tree, or that he took the cheap option and got it from his own garden, instead of getting a quality one from Italy.  

Quoted from forza ivano

What an absolute crock of shite.i' lol leave others to tell you all their achievements.
I think this thread shows the depressingly low level of general knowledge on the political/ democratic make up of this country.
Firstly the board is just like any parish council. My village has about 500 people in it, unless there is a development being mooted there are only about 10 people who turn up to watch the half dozen councillors perform their democratic duties. We are fortunate to have just enough councillors, they could do with more.they often ask but very rarely does anyone put themselves forward. However everyone knows who's on the council and they're regularly mooned about over a pint in the pilgrim. If more people put themselves forward then there would be an election, but it never happens coz nobody does.
Does all this sound familiar? And this happens in nearly every parish council in the country.
Those of you criticising and questioning the boards representative should familiarise yourself with the difference between a representative and a delegate.
At the same time you might also want to look up unanimous and unequivocal and see that they are two quite different things
Having done your research then may I suggest that as you care so much about the trust then you actually get yourself a bit more involved.you never know we might even end up having an election for the trust board, but I won't hold my breath


Ps one final thought. Do we know who actually drafted that club statement? I say that because are we all 100% certain (given the appalling grammar and English in previous announcements) that they actually took the time to consider if unequivocal was truly the word they were looking for? Correct use of English and the subtleties of meanings of certain words are not exactly strong points when it comes to statements from the club. ( only last week we were informed that Luton weren't 'inflammable' and that's from a bloody ex schoolteacher!)

Congratulations, you win the award for the most pretentious and condescending post I’ve ever read in 10 years of posting on here.

I think you do the Trust a massive disservice by comparing it to parish councils.

By design, parish councils have very little power and therefore naturally means very little engagement. It’s to cater for small villages and only makes up a small percentage of local authorities in the UK. More powerful levels of local/devolved Government have higher levels of engagement.

We’ve seen, on the other hand, how influential and powerful the trust can be with Operation Promotion. Not just financially but in terms of the feeling around the football club. It has significant power and influence if it chooses to exert it. Even in the Trust’s inception it had significant power in terms of shares, but arguably chose not to exert its power. So a comparison with a parish council is not only ignorant (as by design parish councils have very little power) but I suspect it’s the ‘I know best’ mentality that holds the trust back and stops people from joining.

I suspect if members were to be given a real say in the future of the trust by for example, having a say on who the MT representative is on the GTFC board, opinion might not be so divided on its relevance/future. The defensive/bunker mentality and lack of transparency will I think (sadly) will mean that the trust will die a death in the same way that GTST did.

It does appear there are some extremely defensive responses on here perhaps been associating with board too much.

Quoted from davmariner

Congratulations, you win the award for the most pretentious and condescending post I’ve ever read in 10 years of posting on here.

I think you do the Trust a massive disservice by comparing it to parish councils.

By design, parish councils have very little power and therefore naturally means very little engagement. It’s to cater for small villages and only makes up a small percentage of local authorities in the UK. More powerful levels of local/devolved Government have higher levels of engagement.

We’ve seen, on the other hand, how influential and powerful the trust can be with Operation Promotion. Not just financially but in terms of the feeling around the football club. It has significant power and influence if it chooses to exert it. Even in the Trust’s inception it had significant power in terms of shares, but arguably chose not to exert its power. So a comparison with a parish council is not only ignorant (as by design parish councils have very little power) but I suspect it’s the ‘I know best’ mentality that holds the trust back and stops people from joining.

I suspect if members were to be given a real say in the future of the trust by for example, having a say on who the MT representative is on the GTFC board, opinion might not be so divided on its relevance/future. The defensive/bunker mentality and lack of transparency will I think (sadly) will mean that the trust will die a death in the same way that GTST did.

Obviously you do not live in a village and fail to understand the important role parish councils have in the governance of their parish. I look forward to seeing you put yourself forward for the Trust Board in due course

Quoted from Lincoln Mariner 56

Obviously you do not live in a village and fail to understand the important role parish councils have in the governance of their parish. I look forward to seeing you put yourself forward for the Trust Board in due course

Not at all. I grew up under a parish council and in my job I work with different levels of Government across the country and abroad. Parish councils by and large, have very few powers and are more ceremonial.

Quoted from davmariner

Congratulations, you win the award for the most pretentious and condescending post I’ve ever read in 10 years of posting on here.

I think you do the Trust a massive disservice by comparing it to parish councils.

By design, parish councils have very little power and therefore naturally means very little engagement. It’s to cater for small villages and only makes up a small percentage of local authorities in the UK. More powerful levels of local/devolved Government have higher levels of engagement.

We’ve seen, on the other hand, how influential and powerful the trust can be with Operation Promotion. Not just financially but in terms of the feeling around the football club. It has significant power and influence if it chooses to exert it. Even in the Trust’s inception it had significant power in terms of shares, but arguably chose not to exert its power. So a comparison with a parish council is not only ignorant (as by design parish councils have very little power) but I suspect it’s the ‘I know best’ mentality that holds the trust back and stops people from joining.

I suspect if members were to be given a real say in the future of the trust by for example, having a say on who the MT representative is on the GTFC board, opinion might not be so divided on its relevance/future. The defensive/bunker mentality and lack of transparency will I think (sadly) will mean that the trust will die a death in the same way that GTST did.

I was going to leave this but I have to take issue with some of the points you have made:-
Firstly on the only occasion in my membership of and involvement in the Mariners Trust to date where we have needed to exercise full democracy by involving members in a vote THE MEMBERS decided that the shares should be given to J.F. Now that might not sit comfortably with you (and others) but that is what happened. The "turnout" was of a size that local authority politics can only dream of. Recently I've heard on here that it wasn't possible for a small number of people to frighten fellow fans into not attending Checkatrade matches. That is a stand point I agree with, but in the name of consistency how can people say that they were threatened by one man threatening to sell our best player if he didn't get his own way? The answer is that it's not credible....just as the view that a few people on here/ twitter etc. didnt frighten people away from B.P.  In both cases people made informed choices.
Secondly you've stated several times tonight that your thoughts are not anti-Trust but you appear to be accusing us of having "A bunker mentality" and "a lack of transparency". I don't recognise the latter for the reasons that I've already given but to recap..."Have your say" meeting held before a match to enable as many exiles to attend as possible, surgeries held in the bars before home games, production of minutes of Trust Board meetings, production of surveys to test the water on members/fans opinions, pictures of all Board members in the bars and on the website and at least four ways for people to get in touch with us. We aren't perfect by any means but my experience is that we do more than OK in comparison to other organisations I'm involved with. I thought I'd dealt previously with the former and cannot add anything to it.  

Quoted from friskneymariner

It does appear there are some extremely defensive responses on here perhaps been associating with board too much.

I prefer to call it "correcting misunderstandings".

People join bodies like the Trust for many different reasons. Only a small number have the time, aptitude or inclination to take any formal role let alone shoulder the responsibility of being our rep on the Board.
I am content for Mr Wood to act on our behalf, given that he has access to privileged information and has to operate within normal codes of confidentiality even though I have never met the man.

BUT
How do I, as an exile, get to discuss GTFC issues with the Trust board outside the Fishy?
The Bars are rather public, Surveys are useful but time consuming for the likes of barralad and Facebook is anathema to my generation.
If we were a Parish Council, I could bother the local councillor as he cut his grass or washed his car.
Meanwhile, I can email the Trust and see what occurs.

Read this thread with some interest and I speculated yesterday that the Trust would be dragged into the conflict sooner or later.I would ask all fans to remain patient whilst seeking answers at this time but I totally understand the frustration as I feel the same.

Jon Wood/Trust Rep must be allowed and trusted to make decisions at board level in the best interests of the membership which in turn should back the Football Club.In the event he voted to back retaining RS given he would be aware the strength of feeling from the terraces/trust membership others must have had a strong case and he felt compelled to support this.

You would have to say which ever way he would have voted a % would have been unhappy because at the time RS still had a dwindling % thinking he would come good.That has shrunk further the past couple of weeks to the point it`s hard to find outside of the boardroom any support for him at all?

Regarding the Trust and meetings in this present climate I don`t think they have enough and I would argue at this moment in time they should be calling one ASAP such is the strength of feeling.The purpose of the meeting should be to put together a list of questions/actions from the Trust to the football club seeking clear answers and it should be spelled out in no uncertain terms that failure to answer said questions may result in a parting of the ways.

My own personal view is at the earliest opportunity the Trust Rep should demand the return to the Trust of the Parker shares table a vote of no confidence in John Fenty and if as is likely this gets no support he should resign his position in protest.A prepared statement should then be issued cataloguing the 16 years of abject failure and focusing on the tale of woe since we regained league status.Bear in mind the Trust Rep can`t follow through my wishes without consulting with the membership and getting a clear mandate.Now if we had a meeting this could surely be proposed and seconded by a show of hands?

Lastly I am of the opinion if you don`t get behind the Trust at this time you either won`t have a football club left to support OR it will simply carry on rotting away under the current regime.We have sailed past the point of no return under JF in my opinion I can`t see a way back and I can`t see why we should let things rot further?

Having served on a Parish Council for 10 years I can faithfully inform you they have zilch influence zilch power and are the most tedious meetings ever attended by the most parochial self interested people you can meet.

Well it seems like the Trust have had a relatively easy ride in this thread which despite our disagreements has been conducted without resorting to abuse.
Sadly it has come to my notice today that on Saturday that a female member of the Trust board was subject to some pretty vile verbal abuse that has affected her to the point that she is considering her position.
Apathy is one thing. Verbal abuse of that magnitude is another. Perhaps people will end up getting the Trust some of them deserve.

Well, well, well.  J.F. must be laughing his member off at this thread, ‘oh look, they’re even turning on there own now’.  I really do despair at times.

So the GTST representative at a GTFC board meeting either endorsed or didn’t endorse the Board statement.  The same person either did or didn’t endorse Slades appointment.  What’s the relevance, the position is toothless and not one of influence, please don’t demonise the individual or the establishment he is acting on behalf of.  It wouldn’t matter what he said or did, only one person makes the decisions on the running of the club.

Quoted from friskneymariner

Having served on a Parish Council for 10 years I can faithfully inform you they have zilch influence zilch power and are the most tedious meetings ever attended by the most parochial self interested people you can meet.

Yes, I’ve watched the Vicar of Dibley too.

Quoted from davmariner

Not at all. I grew up under a parish council and in my job I work with different levels of Government across the country and abroad. Parish councils by and large, have very few powers and are more ceremonial.

what a condescending and patronising response, and ill informed to boot.
A decent size parish council will have a budget of around £100,000 p.a.+ which is the type of sums the trust dealt with the one off Operation promotion.
My parish council is responsible for the street lighting + the maintenance of the verges, hedges and footpaths  around the parish. It is building the village hall and also is drawing up the Village Plan, a vital form of first defence against rapacious developers. It is also responsible for reporting road defects and ensuring that the work is done, as well as being the first port of call for planning decisions.
Hardly ' very few powers' and certainly not 'largely ceremonial'

i wish that parish councils had more powers but they can't even stop traffic lights at Toll Bar, never mind influencing planning decisions.

To support Dav having being at the heart of the County Council for 13 years I hate to shatter your illusion, Parish Council are held in what I will kindly call bemusement.Please tell me what Parish Council has responsibility for street lighting,it is the remit of either County Councils or District Councils in the case of unitary authorities,most of which is now outsourced in Lincolnshire to Kier. but I am sure you know better.

Any chance of you parish council guys taking your p1ssing contest to the non footy thread ?

Ta.

It's depressing enough with all the negativity about anyway. Without reading Town fans arguing amongst themselves.
JF must be loving it !!!

Quoted from Civvy at last

Any chance of you parish council guys taking your p1ssing contest to the non footy thread ?

Ta.

It's depressing enough with all the negativity about anyway. Without reading Town fans arguing amongst themselves.
JF must be loving it !!!

Good point.

Quoted from barralad

Well it seems like the Trust have had a relatively easy ride in this thread which despite our disagreements has been conducted without resorting to abuse.
Sadly it has come to my notice today that on Saturday that a female member of the Trust board was subject to some pretty vile verbal abuse that has affected her to the point that she is considering her position.
Apathy is one thing. Verbal abuse of that magnitude is another. Perhaps people will end up getting the Trust some of them deserve.

I hope these people can be identified Ian? People abusing others who are voluntarily trying to make the match going experience and all things GTFC better against remarkable odds deserve full backing not abuse.

Friskney and Dav you seem intelligent people judging by your posts and how you construct them. What I don't understand is why you don't bother to look into the Trust constitution properly and understand it. I can't see how you fail to understand the fact that there aren't contested elections to the Trust board because no sodomist seems that bothered about standing.

Given your skills and experience of working with councils why don't you stand for election at the next opportunity? It'd be better for everyone if you were inside the tent pissing out than standing on the outside pissing in.

There's been decisions by the Trust that I fundamentally disagree with (principally the vote to give JF those shares) but I don't have any beef with the way it has conducted its business. It has to comply with the regulations applicable to public interest companies.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

Friskney and Dav you seem intelligent people judging by your posts and how you construct them. What I don't understand is why you don't bother to look into the Trust constitution properly and understand it. I can't see how you fail to understand the fact that there aren't contested elections to the Trust board because no sodomist seems that bothered about standing.

Given your skills and experience of working with councils why don't you stand for election at the next opportunity? It'd be better for everyone if you were inside the tent pissing out than standing on the outside pissing in.

There's been decisions by the Trust that I fundamentally disagree with (principally the vote to give JF those shares) but I don't have any beef with the way it has conducted its business. It has to comply with the regulations applicable to public interest companies.

Given the number of people on here who state their objections to the Parker shares issue I'm becoming increasingly amazed that there was such a high percentage for giving the shares up in the actual vote. Can Vladimir Putin account for his actions at that time?

Thanks Kingston spent 10 years on parish council I was never voted for at anytime.It was always sub quorate and I was co-opted on my dint of my position in village.

As I live considerable distance from GY I couldn't attend all the meetings,besides as stated previously I am a committed anarchist and have an aversion to hierarchical orginisations.

Not aware there is any vacancy anyway and would not wish to step on anybody toes

Just caught up with the back end of this thread - must be my blinkers, but when I started reading about pointless councillors....