Sam Hammam

[lisvaneblue]

I think that's nonsense. I doubt Sam Hammam knows much about the Trust or cares about it either. He's known Keith Morgan for something like 16 or 17 years, and knew him long before the Trust existed. He always enjoyed Keith's company, particularly as Keith is a knowledgeable individual and would give him a good grilling regarding the club's financial dealings. The fact that Keith is now Chairman of the Trust is almost certainly of no interest to Sam Hammam.

If Keith had gone to the meeting as an individual and long time friend of SH that's fine and no one needs to know about. However he went along in his capacity as chair of the Trust and also informed CCFC that he would be going ( that would have gone down well after their payout to Sam).

[The Lone Gunman]

If Keith had gone to the meeting as an individual and long time friend of SH that's fine and no one needs to know about. However he went along in his capacity as chair of the Trust and also informed CCFC that he would be going ( that would have gone down well after their payout to Sam).

Is that a fact? Was Keith invited because he was Chair of the Trust? Was he actually invited in that capacity? Or did he just feel obliged to contact the club and reveal that he was going because he currently holds that position?

[Nobody's Rep]

Is that a fact? Was Keith invited because he was Chair of the Trust? Was he actually invited in that capacity? Or did he just feel obliged to contact the club and reveal that he was going because he currently holds that position?

If he was or wasn't invited as chair then he did the right thing by disclosing to the club as a courtesy as it could be seen as devisive or a conflict of interest if he hadn't - but if he went as an individual then it didn't need publicising on a message board under the name of the trust?

The fact that it has with such scant information has probably led to this thread being longer than it should as people probably want to know who else was there and what else was discussed including if the actual figure of settlement was disclosed which is probably what most people want to know

For me I just want rid of Sam from any conversation associated with this club and bin him as part of another unsavory chapter in our history

[The Lone Gunman]

If he was or wasn't invited as chair then he did the right thing by disclosing to the club as a courtesy as it could be seen as devisive or a conflict of interest if he hadn't - but if he went as an individual then it didn't need publicising on a message board under the name of the trust?

The problem is that if Keith hadn't informed Trust members that he'd attended this get-together and it was subsequently discovered that he was there, he'd get all sorts of muck thrown at him from various quarters.

I know from bitter personal experience that as soon as you take up a position with an organisation like CCST, you're damned if you and damned if you don't. There will always be people lining up to have a pop at you no matter what you do or don't do, despite the fact that such people never do anything constructive themselves.

[OurManFlint II]

If Keith had gone to the meeting as an individual and long time friend of SH that's fine and no one needs to know about. However he went along in his capacity as chair of the Trust and also informed CCFC that he would be going ( that would have gone down well after their payout to Sam).

You should raise your concerns at the next Trust meeting, have the secretary put it on the agenda and we can then push for a vote of no confidence and how the chair brought the trust in to disrepute. There seems to a few trust members in this thread that will back you, I'm sure as member you will get the necessary signatures.

[cyril evans awaydays]

You should raise your concerns at the next Trust meeting, have the secretary put it on the agenda and we can then push for a vote of no confidence and how the chair brought the trust in to disrepute. There seems to a few trust members in this thread that will back you, I'm sure as member you will get the necessary signatures.

I guess this is a reaction to Lisvane Blues suggestion that the meeting should have been performed like an AGM, which I agree is a little over the top. Nevertheless there is nothing wrong in raising a view in a thread he didn't start that falls a long way short of a vote of confidence.

As a Trust Member, for my part, it is a little disquieting that Hammam is still trying to haunt the battlements like Banquo's ghost. Given his track record his motivation for asking for a meeting is likely to be not totally pure. Even if it was to catch up with an old acquaintance then there would likely be some element of intelligence gathering on his part.

I have no truck with the way this was handled and disclosed. It would be good from the Trust perspective that this is the end rather than a beginning of the relationship.

[Nobody's Rep]

The problem is that if Keith hadn't informed Trust members that he'd attended this get-together and it was subsequently discovered that he was there, he'd get all sorts of muck thrown at him from various quarters.

I know from bitter personal experience that as soon as you take up a position with an organisation like CCST, you're damned if you and damned if you don't. There will always be people lining up to have a pop at you no matter what you do or don't do, despite the fact that such people never do anything constructive themselves.

Totally agree and that's why I think he did the right thing by disclosing it to the club and I assume the trust including its members

What didn't need to happen is for it to appear in here as it was a matter for the trust and not an open forum.

Of course it is exacerbated by the subject matter whcuh for me is more reason not to have it shared in an open forum - this isn't a criticism of Keith or the trust - just my opinion.

If someone from the trust then discloses it then there is not a lot Keith could do.

I volunteer as a chair of a charity so I know exactly what you mean about being damned if you or don't

[blue matt]

I

As a Trust Member, for my part, it is a little disquieting that Hammam is still trying to haunt the battlements like Banquo's ghost. Given his track record his motivation for asking for a meeting is likely to be not totally pure. Even if it was to catch up with an old acquaintance then there would likely be some element of intelligence gathering on his part.

Agreed

Im not sure why Scam needed a meeting, but you can be 100% it was because he thought he could get something out of it, I dont know Keith but everyone speaks highly of him , TLG has mentioned they go back to when Scam was here, so maybe it was a " friendly thing " but we know Scam only doesn't things unless it suits him, the funny / sad thing is, even after all he has done, people will still defend him and can't see through the bullshit, the guy must be the best salesman in the world as selling himself

[splott parker]

In a world where we criticise underhandedness, lies and misleading quotes I can’t bring myself to criticise someone who’s been quite transparent regarding this situation. Keith was very wise before the event in my opinion, imagine the outcry if he’d kept his powder dry only for it to be revealed a while down the line, no doubt by Hammam attempting to rock the boat again.

[OurManFlint II]

I guess this is a reaction to Lisvane Blues suggestion that the meeting should have been performed like an AGM, which I agree is a little over the top. Nevertheless there is nothing wrong in raising a view in a thread he didn't start that falls a long way short of a vote of confidence.

As a Trust Member, for my part, it is a little disquieting that Hammam is still trying to haunt the battlements like Banquo's ghost. Given his track record his motivation for asking for a meeting is likely to be not totally pure. Even if it was to catch up with an old acquaintance then there would likely be some element of intelligence gathering on his part.

I have no truck with the way this was handled and disclosed. It would be good from the Trust perspective that this is the end rather than a beginning of the relationship.

Yeah i was being a little facetious of course, but it was more a dig at people always wanting to stick the boot into the trust when most likely not members themselves. If people have a problem with the way the trust run their organization, join up and tell them!

[lisvaneblue]

You should raise your concerns at the next Trust meeting, have the secretary put it on the agenda and we can then push for a vote of no confidence and how the chair brought the trust in to disrepute. There seems to a few trust members in this thread that will back you, I'm sure as member you will get the necessary signatures.

That suggestion is a bit OTT to be honest. I and others are making the point that the Chair attended the meeting on behalf of the Trust and then published a vague report about it without the usual detail contained in Trust feedback.
It's proving to be another example of the sort of dissent and chaos that SH can cause amongst supporters, then walk away while we try to sort it out.

[The Lone Gunman]

I and others are making the point that the Chair attended the meeting on behalf of the Trust and then published a vague report about it without the usual detail contained in Trust feedback.

Did he? Is that a fact?

[lisvaneblue]

Did he? Is that a fact?

yes it is a fact. The Trust report says.....""We wanted to make members aware that that Trust chair Keith Morgan was recently invited to a meeting by former Cardiff City owner Sam Hammam. The chairman accepted the invitation""....

[The Lone Gunman]

yes it is a fact. The Trust report says.....""We wanted to make members aware that that Trust chair Keith Morgan was recently invited to a meeting by former Cardiff City owner Sam Hammam. The chairman accepted the invitation""....

You are making the assumption that Keith was invited in his capacity as Trust Chairman and it was some sort of 'official' meeting. I'd be very surprised if that was the case. I think it's far more likely that Keith was invited on an informal basis because he's known Sam for so long, and he let both the club and the Trust members know about it as a courtesy due to his position.

[lisvaneblue]

You are making the assumption that Keith was invited in his capacity as Trust Chairman and it was some sort of 'official' meeting. I'd be very surprised if that was the case. I think it's far more likely that Keith was invited on an informal basis because he's known Sam for so long, and he let both the club and the Trust members know about it as a courtesy due to his position.

No I'm not saying that. The Trust, and Keith must have assumed that he should attend in his official capacity because the Trust report supports that view. If he had been invited as an individual that surely the report would have made that point?
I believe the Trust made a mistake in making this Trust business. As you mentioned previously it is hard to shake off the badge of office when invited to a meeting in a personal capacity( if that was the case). In my book an error of judgment to have attended such a meeting, let's move on.

[The Lone Gunman]

The Trust, and Keith must have assumed that he should attend in his official capacity because the Trust report supports that view.

I'm confident you're wrong. I'm also confident that Sam Hammam has no interest in CCST whatsoever. I'm sure Sam would have invited Keith to such a gathering regardless of whether he'd been involved in CCST or not, just as he did many times before Keith was chair of the Trust. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure Keith will let us know in due course.

[lisvaneblue]

I'm confident you're wrong. I'm also confident that Sam Hammam has no interest in CCST whatsoever. I'm sure Sam would have invited Keith to such a gathering regardless of whether he'd been involved in CCST or not, just as he did many times before Keith was chair of the Trust. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure Keith will let us know in due course.

How can I be wrong when the Trust's own report on the meeting says..." The chairman accepted the invitation and gave club senior management prior notice of the meeting"''

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

The problem with the trust is that for all this crap about our so called passionate fans most are a bunch of servile mice or treacherous rats .

[OurManFlint II]

That suggestion is a bit OTT to be honest. I and others are making the point that the Chair attended the meeting on behalf of the Trust and then published a vague report about it without the usual detail contained in Trust feedback.
It's proving to be another example of the sort of dissent and chaos that SH can cause amongst supporters, then walk away while we try to sort it out.

Are you a trust member?

[2b2bdoo]

Are you a trust member?

Does it make his point any less valid?

[Canton Kev]

The problem with the trust is that for all this crap about our so called passionate fans most are a bunch of servile mice or treacherous rats .

To be honest, I’d like to consider myself a passionate fan but I’ve got no clue what the trust have done in all my years supporting Cardiff. I feel fan interaction with our club is quite poor.

[the other bob wilson]

The problem with the trust is that for all this crap about our so called passionate fans most are a bunch of servile mice or treacherous rats .

Name names then Sludge - I know all of the Trust Committee members and that description doesn’t fit one of them - surprised at you writing such rubbish.

[the other bob wilson]

To be honest, I’d like to consider myself a passionate fan but I’ve got no clue what the trust have done in all my years supporting Cardiff. I feel fan interaction with our club is quite poor.

Well, it’s doubtful that statue of Fred Keenor would be there were it not for the Trust for a start. Still, it’s been years since we’ve had a good Trust bashing session on here, so carry on. Don’t you think the main reason why fan interaction with the club is poor is the club itself?

[the other bob wilson]

Name names then Sludge - I know all of the Trust Committee members and that description doesn’t fit one of them - surprised at you writing such rubbish.

Apologies Sludge, I misread what you said, thought you were talking about the Trust being servile mice and treacherous rats - once again, sorry

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Name names then Sludge - I know all of the Trust Committee members and that description doesn’t fit one of them - surprised at you writing such rubbish.

I refer to our fanbase and the myths around it not the Trust who are the poor bastards caught in the middle