Freefall

Personally I’m surprised people didn’t work this out weeks ago. Sav has his faults, as well do and I’m sure he’ll agree, and maybe would do one or two things differently now (responses on social media) but that was possibly brought about by frustration.   Agree with him or not - he tried to do things for others- as do certain others in the Trust. For the right reasons. On the counter side Ipswin makes a valid point. In effect the Trust has always been undermined/used when suits/looked down on. And infiltrated since Day 1 with representatives or friends of the ‘regime’, still is to this day. And that influence renders the work and efforts of others as fruitless.

When push comes to shove, the only way a Trust can get going and challenge decisions is from the outside looking in.  A board place isn’t worth £1 with current incumbents. So first part is to get a completely new Trust board, some of which are in place already, rid themselves of ANY associations with club hierarchy, vote and decide on way ahead. If that means stopping payments, losing board place - so be it. Then publicly state opposed and no confidence in club board. Of course then there’ll be the expected reaction, the threats, then the ‘I didn’t want to be in this position but I did’ saga, - so what?? Carries on there’ll be non league football and gates of 1500 or so. Situation that can’t continue long term. The failure will eventually hit home, the pot will run dry. The threats become meaningless. Of course no one wants it to come to that - you’d hope common sense prevails somewhere along the way.  But sadly common sense hasn’t been evident for some time. More interested in school ground arguments.

Anyway, for me that’s the way forward. John Fenty and pals have to understand/appreciate the club is bigger than individuals. Always will be.  And due to a succession of events their position is now almost untenable.  I’m not sure people understand the feelings of many about the club, some from afar. It won’t ever go under, despite the sound bites of those who want you to think it’s future is dependent on 1 person. Balderdash.

Quoted from Caesar

True. And I would want to hear more, but part of the problem is it seems like trying to get blood out of stone just trying to get information. And I know this is me making a judgment without much evidence but it does feel like the Trust is very close to the board.  I understand these things take time but there is nothing that suggests the Trust are starting to renegotiate the seat on the board.

It certainly feels like the Trust rep on the board is perhaps 'too respectful' of his fellow board members ( probably at their request!) and maybe lost sight of being the fans representative??

Who knows?

I hope the Trust have already prepared the members voting forms re the re-negotiation or complete withdrawal from the club board

I believe Bax,JOHN WOODS place on the board is unatenable and he should stand down immediately.At the end of the day it seems the mariners trust rep is so far up fentys behind.MR Woods need to explain his actions.

Quoted from marinerjase

Personally I’m surprised people didn’t work this out weeks ago. Sav has his faults, as well do and I’m sure he’ll agree, and maybe would do one or two things differently now (responses on social media) but that was possibly brought about by frustration.   Agree with him or not - he tried to do things for others- as do certain others in the Trust. For the right reasons. On the counter side Ipswin makes a valid point. In effect the Trust has always been undermined/used when suits/looked down on. And infiltrated since Day 1 with representatives or friends of the ‘regime’, still is to this day. And that influence renders the work and efforts of others as fruitless.

When push comes to shove, the only way a Trust can get going and challenge decisions is from the outside looking in.  A board place isn’t worth £1 with current incumbents. So first part is to get a completely new Trust board, some of which are in place already, rid themselves of ANY associations with club hierarchy, vote and decide on way ahead. If that means stopping payments, losing board place - so be it. Then publicly state opposed and no confidence in club board. Of course then there’ll be the expected reaction, the threats, then the ‘I didn’t want to be in this position but I did’ saga, - so what?? Carries on there’ll be non league football and gates of 1500 or so. Situation that can’t continue long term. The failure will eventually hit home, the pot will run dry. The threats become meaningless. Of course no one wants it to come to that - you’d hope common sense prevails somewhere along the way.  But sadly common sense hasn’t been evident for some time. More interested in school ground arguments.

Anyway, for me that’s the way forward. John Fenty and pals have to understand/appreciate the club is bigger than individuals. Always will be.  And due to a succession of events their position is now almost untenable.  I’m not sure people understand the feelings of many about the club, some from afar. It won’t ever go under, despite the sound bites of those who want you to think it’s future is dependent on 1 person. Balderdash.

Good post Jase.I would like a say in who sits on the trust board and I have been unhappy with a few of those appointed in recent years and I certainly never viewed them as being best to represent me or fans I know.Their appointments have also seemed to coincide with the Trust`s sliding backwards of recent Months.Dave Roberts did an excellent job previously and I have faith in him turning this round as long as he gets the support from the fanbase who need to remember his previous good work.

Quoted from friskneymariner

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.

So does no member of the Trust wish to answer this.

Quoted from friskneymariner

So does no member of the Trust wish to answer this.

I think no-one wants to answer this. I may be totally wrong, but I don't think we would be 22nd in the table if he'd stayed no matter how 'fruit loop' he was. And before anybody brings up Chester, he inherited a right mess there and I wasn't his biggest fan but his signings in one window were better than anything Slade came up with in two.

Idea

Why do we have to buy JF out, why can’t shareholders vote him out?  You don’t have to be on the board of directors if you are a significant shareholders. (see Parker/Mullens/Dodgy Ticket Tout). So here’s my suggestion, which might be flawed, but here goes. JF is due re-election to the board in 2/3 year’s time, so the Trust should plan to oust JF on this re-election date.  At the GTFC AGM shareholders with links to the Trust should attend and vote for new members (those with Trust links) to be added to the board of directors prior to JF re-election and vote against JF election accordingly when it comes to re-election.  The following questions I have might blow this whole idea out of the water:

Do Shareholders get a vote to elect directors or do the directors vote amongst themselves for re-election?
Can shareholders elect members onto the board without the current directors' approval?
When shareholders vote at the AGM, are the votes weighted so one Fenty vote is greater than a Trust/Avg Joe vote because JF holds more shares?

I’ve read through the article of association for GTFC and the above isn’t clear to me.

The new board of directors only have to have £500 worth of shares to be a part of the board. We are not looking for people to finance the club only to run it effectively. There are numerous people around this town with business acumen, but without the capital to invest.  Get people in to run the club that’s only interest is the benefit the club and not one’s own interest, like JF has. I would also suggest the new board use all the maximum 10 board members allowed. See Newport for example. The club at present is sustainable without major investment, but it’s not thriving. It’s being run like a Fish processing factory, the cheapest possible labour and staff available and everything is about cost-cutting. We need people with the vision to build for the future with minimal investment, so we don’t have to rely on one man to fund us.

So what happens to JF current investment in the club, Shareholding, and loan? Shares nothing, just like everyone who own shares in the club, if they want rid, find some to buy them off of you. Loans, well assuming that JF is true to his word, then until GTFC come into a football fortune we don’t have to pay him anything back.  I would want this is writing as I don’t believe a word JF says.  Personally, I would like to see JF walk away with intercourse all, I want him to write off his £2m and for him to accept this is his cost of failure. This is not going to happen though because in JF’s eyes he hasn’t done anything wrong and has never made a mistake and if it was your money would you give it away?

If this plan was feasible then the Trust has a couple of years to find the right people, increase membership with this vision and get everyone in the Town pulling in the right direction, OP showed it’s possible.  The Trust would need a pot of money in case we have a bad season, currently, it’s a debenture of £300k which is underwritten by JF, so the trust would have to have similar funds available.

fire away...

Is it actually true that the GTFC board wrote a mariners trust statement - surely that can't be correct!? If so that would make a mockery of the Trusts role! I also think we need answers on the trusts position when the board meeting was held to discuss sacking slade. I recall the statement said that slade was supported and the word used was not unanimously but som thing similar but not quite th same. I took that to mean trust rep had voted against keeping slade. If that was not the case then I think the trust rep needs to explain why he did not vote for the sacking, by that stage it was obvious that I what the overwhelming majority of fans wanted. I think an explanation would definitely b needed if the fans rep had voted for him to continue. This could then be considered by members when they vote on who should be rep in future (and if they even want a rep anymore on the board). It could be that Jon Wood did vote against slade being retained, but I just feel more transparency is warranted on what was a vital vote for which the views of fans were pretty clear in my opinion.

Is that right that that the club wrote a Trust statement?

I haven't read or heard that previously. If true I am surprised 'bax' didn't resign on the spot.

I have been a very minor shareholder for decades and although I attended the night/day of the long knives when Bill Carr was a ousted I haven't been since. I am sure that Fenty 43% of whatever is more than enough to retain absolute control as it is not one man one vote. He cannot be voted off the board

The Trust usually hide behind Collective Responsibility,this being the case the should take collective responsibility for our present position.