However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
I don't think people did.....I didn't as I trusted Richard Murray's judgement. . . . .
There's a reply to that off it that I'm sure could lead people into legal trouble so I'll leave it at that !
Eh?
My point was that beggars can't be choosers, and we know that the quality of some of those lined up to take over was in the "dubious" category, to say the least.
Who's to say the next lot, if there is a next lot, will be any better? Football has gone beyond clubs being owned by the local lad, brought up on the terrace, making good and buying his club. Mores the pity
So you'd say a Chairman who has just lost a High Court Case based on breach of trust, in the sum of £500k + interest along with additional £230k in costs and whom the judge treated their evidence "with extreme caution" is of 'good character' Offy?
Roman 'lost' a fleet of tankers but that hasn't held Chelski back!
Agree big shame, because I think Parrish and his two mates will all do right by their club - the one they supported from the terraces before they did good by the way.
I think he started off ok, but it's going to his head.
Just look at the fella - looks more and more like Simon Jordan every day and keeps popping up everywhere giving little sound bites.
Give him another year or two and he'll carry on that great Palace tradition of fucking it upo royally. They just can't help themselves.
I read that he has been talking to Dowie, which is probably an indication of the state of his head!
Heard yet another rumour on Saturday about a Swedish businessman looking at us??? Appreciate these rumours are quite regular, just wondering if any of the more informed members of the forum had heard anything to this effect?
Wrong nationality & I'm not saying which nationality it is (before anyone asks). :-)
I can promise you that a game of Chinese whispers has turned in to a tornado of hearsay.
The club has categorically not rewritten any Trust articles.
Every person who has paid their £5 subscription to the Trust effectively owns an equal percentage. The Trust isn't one person, we are all Charlton and fundamentally we all strive to achieve the same thing. A time will come when the fans really need the trust and what will be left?
Fellow supporters, this is an important time for Charlton, let's make sure the future is painted red and white.
So, on that basis, if you haven't joined the Trust, does that mean you are NOT a supporter?
Because I'm pretty sure there are more season ticket holders than Trust members.
Heard yet another rumour on Saturday about a Swedish businessman looking at us??? Appreciate these rumours are quite regular, just wondering if any of the more informed members of the forum had heard anything to this effect?
Wrong nationality & I'm not saying which nationality it is (before anyone asks). :-)
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I dislike the complaint that this debate should'nt go on in public but hidden away out of sight. Does'nt suggest much in the way of transparency, which among Charlton fans, you'd hope for.
I can promise you that a game of Chinese whispers has turned in to a tornado of hearsay.
The club has categorically not rewritten any Trust articles.
Every person who has paid their £5 subscription to the Trust effectively owns an equal percentage. The Trust isn't one person, we are all Charlton and fundamentally we all strive to achieve the same thing. A time will come when the fans really need the trust and what will be left?
Fellow supporters, this is an important time for Charlton, let's make sure the future is painted red and white.
So, on that basis, if you haven't joined the Trust, does that mean you are NOT a supporter?
Because I'm pretty sure there are more season ticket holders than Trust members.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
I guess you have that figure to hand - 3% does seem very low. However I definitely agree that the numbers who actually voted always seemed disappointing to all of us who thought it was important. Since our Trust has started I have been trying to learn about other Trusts and other models. I have learnt that active participation is always disappointing, given the passion a football club seems to arouse. For example the (rightly) highly praised Swansea currently has less than 1000 paid members. That would be about 5% of those who claim to be active supporters. When it started - when Swansea was in danger of liquidation - it quickly got to 3,000, but that was 60% of the active fanbase at the time. So I've concluded that for our Trust to get past 800 is bloody good going, when it is not obvious to most people that a crisis threatens our club.
It's the same story in Germany. Fans demonstrate on the streets if the principle of "50% + 1" fan ownership is threatened, but when you investigate a particular club (I spent the day with Eintracht Frankfurt fans) you find out that active membership is confined to a relatively committed few.
And it is the same story with democracy generally. On Sunday here we commemorate the battle of Narodni street, where in 1989 the students, including my wife, I am intensely proud to say, stood their ground against the charging riot police, and the whole totalitarian regime collapsed within a fortnight. Last month we had general elections. The turnout :59%...
Ran in a couple of student elections and later on I was delegated to oversee a few counts. We would be lucky if turn out was 1% of eligible voters. You can't force people to vote whatever the cause. However if you are elected you still need to represent the community, air what you believe are their views (not necessarily your own), and I believe BH did this. The Trust is using surveys to do the same thing.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
I guess you have that figure to hand - 3% does seem very low. However I definitely agree that the numbers who actually voted always seemed disappointing to all of us who thought it was important. Since our Trust has started I have been trying to learn about other Trusts and other models. I have learnt that active participation is always disappointing, given the passion a football club seems to arouse. For example the (rightly) highly praised Swansea currently has less than 1000 paid members. That would be about 5% of those who claim to be active supporters. When it started - when Swansea was in danger of liquidation - it quickly got to 3,000, but that was 60% of the active fanbase at the time. So I've concluded that for our Trust to get past 800 is bloody good going, when it is not obvious to most people that a crisis threatens our club
It's the same story in Germany. Fans demonstrate on the streets if the principle of "50% + 1" fan ownership is threatened, but when you investigate a particular club (I spent the day with Eintracht Frankfurt fans) you find out that active membership is confined to a relatively committed few.
And it is the same story with democracy generally. On Sunday here we commemorate the battle of Narodni street, where in 1989 the students, including my wife, I am intensely proud to say, stood their ground against the charging riot police, and the whole totalitarian regime collapsed within a fortnight. Last month we had general elections. The turnout :59%...
What,exactly,is the crisis that threatens our club?
I only voted in the last one. At the time of these elections I didn't know any of the candidates, so it always felt to me like like those ballots you get from building societies and similar institutions; just a list of names with know way of telling who'd be best. I only voted in the last one because Vince (Niedowicz?) accosted me outside the Oak one night and talked non-stop until he'd convinced me that he was quite keen on Charlton. I was probably a little starstruck too, because he was the bloke off the telly at the time. Sorry Henry, I didn't know you then ;-)
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
I guess you have that figure to hand - 3% does seem very low. However I definitely agree that the numbers who actually voted always seemed disappointing to all of us who thought it was important. Since our Trust has started I have been trying to learn about other Trusts and other models. I have learnt that active participation is always disappointing, given the passion a football club seems to arouse. For example the (rightly) highly praised Swansea currently has less than 1000 paid members. That would be about 5% of those who claim to be active supporters. When it started - when Swansea was in danger of liquidation - it quickly got to 3,000, but that was 60% of the active fanbase at the time. So I've concluded that for our Trust to get past 800 is bloody good going, when it is not obvious to most people that a crisis threatens our club
It's the same story in Germany. Fans demonstrate on the streets if the principle of "50% + 1" fan ownership is threatened, but when you investigate a particular club (I spent the day with Eintracht Frankfurt fans) you find out that active membership is confined to a relatively committed few.
And it is the same story with democracy generally. On Sunday here we commemorate the battle of Narodni street, where in 1989 the students, including my wife, I am intensely proud to say, stood their ground against the charging riot police, and the whole totalitarian regime collapsed within a fortnight. Last month we had general elections. The turnout :59%...
What,exactly,is the crisis that threatens our club?
That just to maintain a steady position in this league requires somebody to pump in around £6m per year, and it is not obvious to me why we should just expect that money to automatically turn up in the bank account, year after year.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.
And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director. Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality. Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters? The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course. I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
Rick's written my response to this for me.
I offer no personal criticism of Henry in the role, what goes on in the boardroom stays in the boardroom if the SD is to achieve and maintain trust, but I do believe that one primary responsibility of the SD was to ensure the continuance of board representation. Whatever one might think of the Fans' Forum, it doesn't do that.
Given that, I feel more than a little uncomfortable with the criticism directed from Henry to the Trust, and I think Barnie has showed remarkable patience in light of it. That he finally called Henry out on his own contribution to club-supporter relations is, I believe, entirely relevant context - especially if Henry wishes to disparage the Trust board in the way he (in my opinion) he has.
Finally, I don't believe for a second the board thought the role meant little to supporters. If it was so irrelevant to them, why bother to abolish it and establish an extra meeting in the schedule for club officials to attend? It took Richard Murray to be moved aside for that decision to be taken, which suggests to me there was a greater political agenda at play.
Ben Hayes 464 Vince Nieswiecz 456 Sue Townsend 405 Brian Cole 372 Spoilt papers 423
That's a turnout of 2,120 out a stated 15,000 season-ticket holders over 18 - roughly 14%
Interesting, and remarkably close to the 15% which has been played back to me by various fan orgs about the level of active participation you can reasonably expect (outside a crisis such as at Swansea 12 years ago or Pompey more recently).
In other words, if we have this in future, a Board should not be disappointed if no more than around 15% take the chance to actually vote, or to be paid members of a Trust generally.
not forgetting that we now have an explosion of social media, smartphones, etc I would still be surprised if apathy levels were overcome to exceed that 15% by any serious margin, I think it also matters who is standing and what issues are at stake.
use them as guides but never let it be the be all and end all. The Metro paper has a print run around 1.3m copies a day and says its read by 3.5m. The truth is probably that at least 10% who pick it up never read a single page, while 30% may only skim through 3 or 4 pages. Its big ticket numbers should not be a guide to its popularity.
The SD role has gone now and there is no point dwelling on it and getting ingrained in the nitty gritty of vote numbers or lack of them.
The Trust too should not get too excited they have nearly a thousand people signed up to what is a low-cost token membership, exactly the same way they should not get too disappointed when out of that membership they only have ten people attend an SGM, or just 20 when they are giving away free beer.
Most supporters genuinely don't give a fig about the ingrained detail of stuff off the pitch outside a crisis. And over time that is getting less and less.
Agree with AFKA to a certain extent, but given members get not much more than subscribers, and that there isn't a fundraising campaign as such I don't agree that paid members are as insignificant as that. What they are doing is supporting the trusts ability to grow, and that is vital, and a statement.
On the SD my own view is that this must be backed up by a movement like a trust, which is what we lacked before.
Comments
Because I'm pretty sure there are more season ticket holders than Trust members.
EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.
Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.
It's the same story in Germany. Fans demonstrate on the streets if the principle of "50% + 1" fan ownership is threatened, but when you investigate a particular club (I spent the day with Eintracht Frankfurt fans) you find out that active membership is confined to a relatively committed few.
And it is the same story with democracy generally. On Sunday here we commemorate the battle of Narodni street, where in 1989 the students, including my wife, I am intensely proud to say, stood their ground against the charging riot police, and the whole totalitarian regime collapsed within a fortnight. Last month we had general elections. The turnout :59%...
Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality.
Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters?
The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course.
I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.
The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.
Ben Hayes 464
Vince Nieswiecz 456
Sue Townsend 405
Brian Cole 372
Spoilt papers 423
That's a turnout of 2,120 out a stated 15,000 season-ticket holders over 18 - roughly 14%
I offer no personal criticism of Henry in the role, what goes on in the boardroom stays in the boardroom if the SD is to achieve and maintain trust, but I do believe that one primary responsibility of the SD was to ensure the continuance of board representation. Whatever one might think of the Fans' Forum, it doesn't do that.
Given that, I feel more than a little uncomfortable with the criticism directed from Henry to the Trust, and I think Barnie has showed remarkable patience in light of it. That he finally called Henry out on his own contribution to club-supporter relations is, I believe, entirely relevant context - especially if Henry wishes to disparage the Trust board in the way he (in my opinion) he has.
Finally, I don't believe for a second the board thought the role meant little to supporters. If it was so irrelevant to them, why bother to abolish it and establish an extra meeting in the schedule for club officials to attend? It took Richard Murray to be moved aside for that decision to be taken, which suggests to me there was a greater political agenda at play.
In other words, if we have this in future, a Board should not be disappointed if no more than around 15% take the chance to actually vote, or to be paid members of a Trust generally.
Were they all from the smokers?
How, pray tell, could anyone ensure that?
use them as guides but never let it be the be all and end all. The Metro paper has a print run around 1.3m copies a day and says its read by 3.5m. The truth is probably that at least 10% who pick it up never read a single page, while 30% may only skim through 3 or 4 pages. Its big ticket numbers should not be a guide to its popularity.
The SD role has gone now and there is no point dwelling on it and getting ingrained in the nitty gritty of vote numbers or lack of them.
The Trust too should not get too excited they have nearly a thousand people signed up to what is a low-cost token membership, exactly the same way they should not get too disappointed when out of that membership they only have ten people attend an SGM, or just 20 when they are giving away free beer.
Most supporters genuinely don't give a fig about the ingrained detail of stuff off the pitch outside a crisis. And over time that is getting less and less.
On the SD my own view is that this must be backed up by a movement like a trust, which is what we lacked before.