Freefall

Quoted from Rodley Mariner

Your posts always seem very pro-Fenty and the club nowadays Alfie?

Far from it. The club desperately needs fresh voices in the boardroom but I just don’t see the queue of knights in shining armour to save us all.

I’m more concerned as to why Bax seems to be looking to undermine the work volunteers are doing with his thinly veiled comments while claiming to not be a excrement-stirrer (choosing to intervene a few days after a derby defeat).

Comes across as someone who couldn’t influence those on the Trust board in his five minutes as Chair so took his ball, cancelled his standing order and stopped coming to games. All town aren’t we.

All this infighting is what happens when organisations are on the brink of collapse. A reckoning is coming and everyone is shuffling for position. JF has gone dark and we haven't heard from him for a while. The Trust hierarchy are obviously split on the direction we should be taking and all the while, the important bit, namely the team, is floundering and without direction. It's a complete fooking mess to put it bluntly.

Think i'll lock myself in a cupboard for 5 years and come back when we are in the Championship.

Quoted from Alfie

Far from it. His record speaks for itself and the club desperately needs fresh voices in the boardroom but I just don’t see the queue of knights in shining armour to save us all.

I’m more concerned as to why Bax seems to be looking to undermine the work volunteers are doing with his thinly veiled comments while claiming to not be a excrement-stirrer (choosing to intervene a few days after a derby defeat).

Comes across as someone who couldn’t influence those on the Trust board in his five minutes as Chair so took his ball, cancelled his standing order and stopped coming to games. All town aren’t we.

Comes across to me as someone who’s telling it how it is ( I don’t know him ) and unfortunately it’s ruffling a few feathers. The people in the trust who have fronted it and sat in the meetings with board and then left have all come to the same conclusion by the look of it.  As soon as the shares were transferred the trust lost credibility , hence the membership never really kicked on and the whole thing is becoming farce

I wondered how long it would be before people came out to discredit me!

Time to getourfactsright

The Trust has financial issues. Income is down, expenditure is up. For various reasons. The Trust pays £30k a year for a place on the board and last year paid another £16k for things such as bar rent to contribute towards the costs on the club. This was renegotiated last year and at the minute is actually exacerbating the expenditure problem. I wasn’t involved in the negotiations (they started before I was Chair) but at the last meeting I attended in January it was stated the bar contributions would be in excess of the payment last year and income from them would be lower.

If money is tight you look at income and expenditure. The biggest expenditure is the £30k. I also felt it was absolutely right to get the fans and members’ views via the survey. You can’t make big decisions without a clear steer from the members. I had a meeting with the club board which discussed a number of issues, one of which was the £30k. I think it’s fair to say that at that time the club had no interest in discussing a reduction. So we issued the survey. The results would then give a fair mandate to say ‘look, the £30k is crippling us, we need a sensible discussion’. I was accused of being militant which I wasn’t. I waned a sensible discussion to solve a problem.

During the writing of the survey delays were put on including that £30k question. It was intimated the club didn’t want us to include it (I cannot day for certain if this is true or not) Nevertheless it went in. It’s vital that this is looked at. The agreement is 6 or 7 years old and was made when the Trust was in its infancy. Only 2 or 3 people remain from that agreement. It needed to be looked at. Crucially the viability of the Trust is at stake.

There are people on the Trust board who are of the opinion the Trust comes off the club board over their dead body. That’s their opinion. I’m ambivalent personally. It has huge value, but are fans listened to? And is the cost of it affordable? Personally I hoped that discussions would lead to the £30k being dropped and the board place remaining. The best of both worlds. That was my own personal hope of what we could achieve. If that makes me naive so be it.

During all of this there was a second board meeting to discuss Russell slades future. The board had unanimously backed him at the first meeting (as was well publicised) and it was clear  that the fans didn’t agree with that.  if iat that second meting it came to a vote I suggested  the fan rep should vote in a different way. The conclusion of that board meeting was that Russell would remain (again as was publicised)

I’ve alwsys felt it important to be transparent to the members we represent. The Trust hasn’t always been as transparent as it could be (I’ll hold my hands up to that) and I pushed for a statement to say what the Trust wanted to do. This went out and upset the club board. Again I’ll hold my hands up - I wanted the fans to know the Trust was listening and the statement I wrote wasn’t 100% in line with what was originally put to me (but had been agreed by all). The club wanted a clarification statement which went out, the content of which was agreed by the club board and not the Trust board. I don’t believe any Trust statements should go through the club board.

The statement I wrote for the Trust caused a rift on the club board over collective responsibility. During this process I was informed that the clubs board had been told by the Trust board rep he ‘idealogically opposed’ the direction of the Trust (ie the survey and transparency) in a bid to save his seat on the board. I say told, I have the emails where that and other things were discussed. After seeing the emails I resigned with immediate effect.

The Trust needs strong leadership. If that’s not me I’m big enough to take it on the chin and someone else can have a go. But the Trust needs to be run to represent its members and not throw people under the bus to save their seat on the board. That’s self interest. It’s not ‘collective responsibility ‘

I understand the Trust board members haven’t been told any of this and it’s been kept from them. Why?

Am I excrement stirring? People can judge however they like. I know that I tried to represent the fans whilst on the Trust and I know I’m not prepared to be part of something that doesn’t represent them.

There needs to be change. I don’t know what (I know I don’t want to be part of it) Or by who. But change is required.

Quoted from bax

I wondered how long it would be before people came out to discredit me!

Time to getourfactsright

The Trust has financial issues. Income is down, expenditure is up. For various reasons. The Trust pays £30k a year for a place on the board and last year paid another £16k for things such as bar rent to contribute towards the costs on the club. This was renegotiated last year and at the minute is actually exacerbating the expenditure problem. I wasn’t involved in the negotiations (they started before I was Chair) but at the last meeting I attended in January it was stated the bar contributions would be in excess of the payment last year and income from them would be lower.

If money is tight you look at income and expenditure. The biggest expenditure is the £30k. I also felt it was absolutely right to get the fans and members’ views via the survey. You can’t make big decisions without a clear steer from the members. I had a meeting with the club board which discussed a number of issues, one of which was the £30k. I think it’s fair to say that at that time the club had no interest in discussing a reduction. So we issued the survey. The results would then give a fair mandate to say ‘look, the £30k is crippling us, we need a sensible discussion’. I was accused of being militant which I wasn’t. I waned a sensible discussion to solve a problem.

During the writing of the survey delays were put on including that £30k question. It was intimated the club didn’t want us to include it (I cannot day for certain if this is true or not) Nevertheless it went in. It’s vital that this is looked at. The agreement is 6 or 7 years old and was made when the Trust was in its infancy. Only 2 or 3 people remain from that agreement. It needed to be looked at. Crucially the viability of the Trust is at stake.

There are people on the Trust board who are of the opinion the Trust comes off the club board over their dead body. That’s their opinion. I’m ambivalent personally. It has huge value, but are fans listened to? And is the cost of it affordable? Personally I hoped that discussions would lead to the £30k being dropped and the board place remaining. The best of both worlds. That was my own personal hope of what we could achieve. If that makes me naive so be it.

During all of this there was a second board meeting to discuss Russell slades future. The board had unanimously backed him at the first meeting (as was well publicised) and it was clear  that the fans didn’t agree with that.  if iat that second meting it came to a vote I suggested  the fan rep should vote in a different way. The conclusion of that board meeting was that Russell would remain (again as was publicised)

I’ve alwsys felt it important to be transparent to the members we represent. The Trust hasn’t always been as transparent as it could be (I’ll hold my hands up to that) and I pushed for a statement to say what the Trust wanted to do. This went out and upset the club board. Again I’ll hold my hands up - I wanted the fans to know the Trust was listening and the statement I wrote wasn’t 100% in line with what was originally put to me (but had been agreed by all). The club wanted a clarification statement which went out, the content of which was agreed by the club board and not the Trust board. I don’t believe any Trust statements should go through the club board.

The statement I wrote for the Trust caused a rift on the club board over collective responsibility. During this process I was informed that the clubs board had been told by the Trust board rep he ‘idealogically opposed’ the direction of the Trust (ie the survey and transparency) in a bid to save his seat on the board. I say told, I have the emails where that and other things were discussed. After seeing the emails I resigned with immediate effect.

The Trust needs strong leadership. If that’s not me I’m big enough to take it on the chin and someone else can have a go. But the Trust needs to be run to represent its members and not throw people under the bus to save their seat on the board. That’s self interest. It’s not ‘collective responsibility ‘

I understand the Trust board members haven’t been told any of this and it’s been kept from them. Why?

Am I excrement stirring? People can judge however they like. I know that I tried to represent the fans whilst on the Trust and I know I’m not prepared to be part of something that doesn’t represent them.

There needs to be change. I don’t know what (I know I don’t want to be part of it) Or by who. But change is required.

Thanks for the honesty and I believe you.Sadly you only did the job a short while and reading this post it`s clear why.The MT is supposed to represent the views of the fans and clearly that is what you tried to do.100% MT statements should not go through the flipping board.

Jon Wood is just another yes man.

It's been publicly stated that Jon voiced the fans concerns at board level but that could have easily been voiced in a way that supported Slade, what if Jon Wood said something like this "many fans are concerned about Slade's management for X, Y and Z reason however I believe a few wins could easily change this and I believe that Russell and Wilkinson are both vastly experienced so therefore he deserves time to strengthen us in January and those new signings deserve a chance to settle in so therefore I am more than happy to give Slade more time"

At the fans forum he said he voiced the concerns about the Checkatrade trophy but he fully backed and supported the boards view on that!!!

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how Jon Wood voted on the Russell Slade issue or anything else for that matter, he could well be a yes man...

Quoted from bax

During this process I was informed that the clubs board had been told by the Trust board rep he ‘idealogically opposed’ the direction of the Trust (ie the survey and transparency) in a bid to save his seat on the board. I say told, I have the emails where that and other things were discussed. After seeing the emails I resigned with immediate effect.

Thanks for the insight Bax, in light of this Jon Wood's position as the Trust rep on the club's board is clearly no longer tenable.

Quoted from Davec

Jon Wood is just another yes man.

It's been publicly stated that Jon voiced the fans concerns at board level but that could have easily been voiced in a way that supported Slade, what if Jon Wood said something like this "many fans are concerned about Slade's management for X, Y and Z reason however I believe a few wins could easily change this and I believe that Russell and Wilkinson are both vastly experienced so therefore he deserves time to strengthen us in January and those new signings deserve a chance to settle in so therefore I am more than happy to give Slade more time"

At the fans forum he said he voiced the concerns about the Checkatrade trophy but he fully backed and supported the boards view on that!!!

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how Jon Wood voted on the Russell Slade issue or anything else for that matter, he could well be a yes man...

Make your mind up Davec

IIRC Jon Wood said at a recent open meeting that IF the fans wanted the Trust to move towards fan ownership then that was fine but it would not include him.

He nailed his opinion in an open and public forum. That is not going behind anyone's back IMO.

Having said that the Trust can only represent their membership and I agree 100% with Bax on this. It is hard because it is extremely difficult to know what the membership thinks.

I believe it is fair to say that many who frequent the Fishy are more militant and it could be that other paid up members who do not use social media are of a different view?
The only way to know is to ask all the members. Hence the survey, but I thought too many of the questions were not direct enough and it was too flowery and wishy-washy.

Ask direct questions and you are more likely to get direct answers!

The area which is very murky to me is the sacking of Bignot and the appointment of Slade,was the Trust member on the board involved in the decision making,was there a vote?.
If so how did the Trust board member vote and how did they arrive at their mandate,we have never been informed and as a member I would be very upset if the Trust member voted for the return of Slade without any form of consultation.