Sent out to Trust members this morning.

[TDA]

Have you posted your messages on the other City messageboards?

Not on ours

[splott parker]

Not on ours

So is it just this messageboard? I’d have thought every board would have had the original poster’s message posted, why single out this one? Trust members, who it’s been aimed at, may frequent other boards rather than this one.

[Baloo]

2. I’ve walked passed the Trust building upwards of 300 times

6. We’re trying to be proactive and want to grow the trust

Just be prepared, I suspect it going to get a bit tougher if you put yourself forward to be scrutinised tbh.

[TheBirchgrovePub]

Only back as someone pointed out to me I said get in touch and hadn’t said how .. rookie mistake. I’ll answer some of the above as I’m here … but don’t expect anything further.

1. I don’t really use message boards, nor much social media in general. I’ve only joined here to respond to the nonsense above. If you want to get in touch the best way is X, I’m @buncey07 - always happy to talk.

2. To answer Baloo, I’ve been a season ticket holder in the Canton stand since it opened. I’ve walked passed the Trust building upwards of 300 times, I’d guess and not once had I been asked to join the trust, nor explained what it did. I, and I’m sure the majority of supporters would assume the only reason you wouldn’t be actively recruiting is because numbers were fairly good and solid.
The trust doesn’t actively publicise its numbers and it’s clear from this thread, there was shock at how low it’s gone. It was only when we ourselves started digging into it before joining that we thought something needed to be done. If the only good that comes out of this is it actively gives those at the top a kick, it’ll be a good thing. The post above is arguably more recruiting than they’ve done since the return from Covid.

3. Splott Parker - A big thanks probably goes to whomever on the trust runs the X account. Almost all of us in the group have disagreed with some of the comments/processes over the last 12 months, prior to joining, though many of us are friends or friend of friends. In our interactions most had had the standard response of “if you don’t like how it’s run, join” .. then when you do, you get dogs abuse anyway. Once a 5-6 of us joined, it grew pretty organically and quickly. As above, we’ve tried to be professional, we’ve not used social media, but I would think there are lots out there who probably think the same. Let’s see.

4. Pontblue - ironically, prior to joining I messaged the Trust. I suggested the trust should propose a delay on season tickets to its members until the board were willing to engage and release the post-relegation strategy that never came. It was when we had the wonderful deafening silence on the managers hunt as you’ll probably remember. I was told it would be passed to the board and nobody ever came back to me with even the decency of a response. Whilst I appreciate I wasn’t a member at the time, common courtesy would’ve been to say “thanks, but no thanks”. Since then, if I’ve emailed the trust, it’s taken multiple weeks for a response and I’ve had to chase it. Whilst I appreciate your all doing this as volunteers, and to be clear you do an excellent job at it given it’s in your spare time, to think improvements can’t be made is short sighted in my opinion. Anyone reading this thread would have the general consensus that it’s the boards way or the highway .. so having a position to influence that seems pretty critical. Perhaps you might have a different avenue or extra kudos for time served, but it seems pretty clear new members thoughts are unwelcome and must first be vetted. Didn’t someone mention a 2 year window earlier ..

5. No idea who TDA is, but he might want to speak to the FSA. Given you’ve announced the SGM, no member joining after this date can vote at it. To quote your vice chairman “play by the rules”.

6. Other Bob Wilson - not sure what your point is. We’re trying to be proactive and want to grow the trust. If you feel having new members is a bad thing, it probably sums up why its numbers have stagnated. Perhaps being more welcoming might’ve helped.

Thanks and have a good weekend. Onto 3 points tomorrow. If you need me, you know where to find me.

Quick look at your X account and youÂ’re replying to Steve Day recently. No thanks

[the other bob wilson]

Only back as someone pointed out to me I said get in touch and hadnÂ’t said how .. rookie mistake. IÂ’ll answer some of the above as IÂ’m here Â… but donÂ’t expect anything further.

1. I donÂ’t really use message boards, nor much social media in general. IÂ’ve only joined here to respond to the nonsense above. If you want to get in touch the best way is X, IÂ’m @buncey07 - always happy to talk.

2. To answer Baloo, IÂ’ve been a season ticket holder in the Canton stand since it opened. IÂ’ve walked passed the Trust building upwards of 300 times, IÂ’d guess and not once had I been asked to join the trust, nor explained what it did. I, and IÂ’m sure the majority of supporters would assume the only reason you wouldnÂ’t be actively recruiting is because numbers were fairly good and solid.
The trust doesnÂ’t actively publicise its numbers and itÂ’s clear from this thread, there was shock at how low itÂ’s gone. It was only when we ourselves started digging into it before joining that we thought something needed to be done. If the only good that comes out of this is it actively gives those at the top a kick, itÂ’ll be a good thing. The post above is arguably more recruiting than theyÂ’ve done since the return from Covid.

3. Splott Parker - A big thanks probably goes to whomever on the trust runs the X account. Almost all of us in the group have disagreed with some of the comments/processes over the last 12 months, prior to joining, though many of us are friends or friend of friends. In our interactions most had had the standard response of “if you don’t like how it’s run, join” .. then when you do, you get dogs abuse anyway. Once a 5-6 of us joined, it grew pretty organically and quickly. As above, we’ve tried to be professional, we’ve not used social media, but I would think there are lots out there who probably think the same. Let’s see.

4. Pontblue - ironically, prior to joining I messaged the Trust. I suggested the trust should propose a delay on season tickets to its members until the board were willing to engage and release the post-relegation strategy that never came. It was when we had the wonderful deafening silence on the managers hunt as you’ll probably remember. I was told it would be passed to the board and nobody ever came back to me with even the decency of a response. Whilst I appreciate I wasn’t a member at the time, common courtesy would’ve been to say “thanks, but no thanks”. Since then, if I’ve emailed the trust, it’s taken multiple weeks for a response and I’ve had to chase it. Whilst I appreciate your all doing this as volunteers, and to be clear you do an excellent job at it given it’s in your spare time, to think improvements can’t be made is short sighted in my opinion. Anyone reading this thread would have the general consensus that it’s the boards way or the highway .. so having a position to influence that seems pretty critical. Perhaps you might have a different avenue or extra kudos for time served, but it seems pretty clear new members thoughts are unwelcome and must first be vetted. Didn’t someone mention a 2 year window earlier ..

5. No idea who TDA is, but he might want to speak to the FSA. Given you’ve announced the SGM, no member joining after this date can vote at it. To quote your vice chairman “play by the rules”.

6. Other Bob Wilson - not sure what your point is. WeÂ’re trying to be proactive and want to grow the trust. If you feel having new members is a bad thing, it probably sums up why its numbers have stagnated. Perhaps being more welcoming mightÂ’ve helped.

Thanks and have a good weekend. Onto 3 points tomorrow. If you need me, you know where to find me.

Putting words in my mouth there, i didn’t say anything remotely like i don’t want new members in the Trust - just not convinced this new intake have joined for the most noble of reasons. What I said was simple enough, you talk about eight months being a long time,yet it takes the Trust to be into its eighteenth year before deciding to do something about it (I recognise that some of the new intake have been members before, so that doesn’t apply to all of them) - having waited that long to act, time is clearly of the essence with you now because everything, seemingly, needs to be done straight away.

Also, you talk about all of those years walking past the Trust Office with no recognition from the members who man the office before games. Well, as hundreds have found out during that time, all you had to do was ask. As it is, with about 95 per cent plus of the new intake paying for their memberships by Stripe, it seems that they were able to find out all of the info they needed to join from the Trust’s website which I believe has been available for all supporters to use since the Trust’s inception in 2008.

[TDA]

So is it just this messageboard? I’d have thought every board would have had the original poster’s message posted, why single out this one? Trust members, who it’s been aimed at, may frequent other boards rather than this one.

I think this is a multi account of someone already on here, or has been in the past. It struck me as odd that he would single me out as someone he didn't know, but maybe as I am only a very occasional poster here, whereas the others he has picked up on are regulars.

[Hilts]

I don't see any issue with what hes posting. Some fair points.

If he goes up for election then he can hopefully as well confirm he will help close down the stupid bullshit rumours which also don't help like the imminent takeover , our top young players being offered contracts by European players , bullshit rumours about our players refusing to meet fans.

If hes not being influenced by those spreading absolute bullshit then an intake of new members will clearly be a good thing. The board certainly need to be subject to tougher questioning.

[Pontprennau Bluebird]

This interesting discussion has delivered healthy debate about just what is the Trust for? Is it an angry mob waving pitchforks outside the club gates, or cheerleaders in grey suits. The truth, as so often is the case, may rest in between these two extremes.

I speak as a former Board Member of the Trust. The Trust should, IMO, provide a considered body of opinion able to question the club’s internal governance arrangements. Whether most fans see it this way is open to debate. The role inevitably attracts a certain category of individual with some achieving a higher profile due to their expertise. I write for the magazine because I’m a journalist. That’s just the way it goes.

The Trust provides an important, independent forum for debate which sits alongside club initiatives such as the FAB and Fan’s Parliament. Healthy debate about the future direction of the Trust is welcome and yes, there may be a need for new blood “at the top.” Hopefully though those individuals who now seek a role are motivated by the right reasons. The Trust is not a vehicle for self promotion.

[PontBlue]

Thanks for replying and sharing your experience. Not all ideas would be taken forward but it's poor form to not have a response after stating it would be passed to the Board.

Regarding that 2 year window I'm sure many people would disagree with the person who mentioned it.

[TDA]

I don't see any issue with what hes posting. Some fair points.

If he goes up for election then he can hopefully as well confirm he will help close down the stupid bullshit rumours which also don't help like the imminent takeover , our top young players being offered contracts by European players , bullshit rumours about our players refusing to meet fans.

If hes not being influenced by those spreading absolute bullshit then an intake of new members will clearly be a good thing. The board certainly need to be subject to tougher questioning.

This interesting discussion has delivered healthy debate about just what is the Trust for? Is it an angry mob waving pitchforks outside the club gates, or cheerleaders in grey suits. The truth, as so often is the case, may rest in between these two extremes.

I speak as a former Board Member of the Trust. The Trust should, IMO, provide a considered body of opinion able to question the club’s internal governance arrangements. Whether most fans see it this way is open to debate. The role inevitably attracts a certain category of individual with some achieving a higher profile due to their expertise. I write for the magazine because I’m a journalist. That’s just the way it goes.

The Trust provides an important, independent forum for debate which sits alongside club initiatives such as the FAB and Fan’s Parliament. Healthy debate about the future direction of the Trust is welcome and yes, there may be a need for new blood “at the top.” Hopefully though those individuals who now seek a role are motivated by the right reasons. The Trust is not a vehicle for self promotion.

A sudden influx of 70 new members have to have come from a common root. How many groups associated with Cardiff City are likely to be able to do that?

This is reminiscent of Slippery Sam and the Langston loan notes. Everyone knew who was behind that despite all the denials.

[NinianKnight]

This interesting discussion has delivered healthy debate about just what is the Trust for? Is it an angry mob waving pitchforks outside the club gates, or cheerleaders in grey suits. The truth, as so often is the case, may rest in between these two extremes.

I speak as a former Board Member of the Trust. The Trust should, IMO, provide a considered body of opinion able to question the club’s internal governance arrangements. Whether most fans see it this way is open to debate. The role inevitably attracts a certain category of individual with some achieving a higher profile due to their expertise. I write for the magazine because I’m a journalist. That’s just the way it goes.

The Trust provides an important, independent forum for debate which sits alongside club initiatives such as the FAB and Fan’s Parliament. Healthy debate about the future direction of the Trust is welcome and yes, there may be a need for new blood “at the top.” Hopefully though those individuals who now seek a role are motivated by the right reasons. The Trust is not a vehicle for self promotion.

Shame if this post is overlooked.

It asks a great question, what is the trust for? I have been approached in the past and asked to join the trust. I think the membership was £12 at the time. I asked the obvious question what does the trust do and what do I get for my £12 donation? The reply mentioned things like governance, FAB and Fan's Parliment and healthy debate. Why would that kind of talk attract me to parting with £12? I saw some bullet points from one of the serious 70 who have joined the trust recently and those proposals would be far more appealling than the corperate talk.

I can see the logic in using indiviual skills, a journalist would make a good press officer for example, but those without specialist skills should not be excluded from serving on the trust board

[splott parker]

Thanks for replying and sharing your experience. Not all ideas would be taken forward but it's poor form to not have a response after stating it would be passed to the Board.

Regarding that 2 year window I'm sure many people would disagree with the person who mentioned it.

I did, I mentioned that it was a notice on the wall of the club we were in before the Stockport game. I thought the time scale between being an associate member to a full member was a bit over the top but, on reflection, it may have been sensible if that area (which I’ve no clue about) was prone to dodgy outsiders getting a foothold.
I was just pointing out how another organisation dealt with a suspicious influx of membership applications

[RichardM]

Shame if this post is overlooked.

It asks a great question, what is the trust for? I have been approached in the past and asked to join the trust. I think the membership was £12 at the time. I asked the obvious question what does the trust do and what do I get for my £12 donation? The reply mentioned things like governance, FAB and Fan's Parliment and healthy debate. Why would that kind of talk attract me to parting with £12? I saw some bullet points from one of the serious 70 who have joined the trust recently and those proposals would be far more appealling than the corperate talk.

I can see the logic in using indiviual skills, a journalist would make a good press officer for example, but those without specialist skills should not be excluded from serving on the trust board

Those without specialist skills aren't exclude. They are free to stand for election.

[NinianKnight]

Those without specialist skills aren't exclude. They are free to stand for election.

I was responding to Pontprennau Bluebird where he said "The role inevitably attracts a certain category of individual with some achieving a higher profile due to their expertise. I write for the magazine because I’m a journalist. That’s just the way it goes."

I acknowledged that those with specialist skills would bring value to the trust board but I also believe that someone with the attitude of rolling their sleaves up and working hard to increase the membership would also be an asset. Unfortuanately their chances of being elected would be slim because of a lack of specialist skill and they would find themselves excluded

[RichardM]

I was responding to Pontprennau Bluebird where he said "The role inevitably attracts a certain category of individual with some achieving a higher profile due to their expertise. I write for the magazine because I’m a journalist. That’s just the way it goes."

I acknowledged that those with specialist skills would bring value to the trust board but I also believe that someone with the attitude of rolling their sleaves up and working hard to increase the membership would also be an asset. Unfortuanately their chances of being elected would be slim because of a lack of specialist skill and they would find themselves excluded

If they had some real ideas about how to increase membership and could articulate these, not just saying that they'll roll their sleeves up and work hard then I'm sure they'd be in with a chance of being elected. They certainly would have been in the past when there has been a lack of candidates.

[the other bob wilson]

If they had some real ideas about how to increase membership and could articulate these, not just saying that they'll roll their sleeves up and work hard then I'm sure they'd be in with a chance of being elected. They certainly would have been in the past when there has been a lack of candidates.

Your last sentence says it all, how can the Trust Committee be some sort of closed shop where only those with some sort of professional qualification are able to serve on there when for much of the Trust’s existence, there have been spare places available for anyone to fill?

[NinianKnight]

If they had some real ideas about how to increase membership and could articulate these, not just saying that they'll roll their sleeves up and work hard then I'm sure they'd be in with a chance of being elected. They certainly would have been in the past when there has been a lack of candidates.

But don't you have to wait until there is an election to get voted on? When the elections come around I sure that those spare seats get filled. Indeed the whole argument at the moment is that there are spare seats, people want to get elected by the trust won't call an election. Sort of kills your reply

[NinianKnight]

Your last sentence says it all, how can the Trust Committee be some sort of closed shop where only those with some sort of professional qualification are able to serve on there when for much of the Trust’s existence, there have been spare places available for anyone to fill?

As stated to get elected a candidate has to wait for an election. ATM there are people who want a chance but are being denied. Sounds like a closed shop to me

[RichardM]

But don't you have to wait until there is an election to get voted on? When the elections come around I sure that those spare seats get filled. Indeed the whole argument at the moment is that there are spare seats, people want to get elected by the trust won't call an election. Sort of kills your reply

Sorry for not spelling it out in simple terms. When there are elections If they have some real ideas about how to increase membership and could articulate these, not just saying that they'll roll their sleeves up and work hard then I'm sure they'd be in with a chance of being elected.

[RichardM]

As stated to get elected a candidate has to wait for an election. ATM there are people who want a chance but are being denied. Sounds like a closed shop to me

You don't just have elections because some people joined the trust and want them, you have them when the constitution says, which is next year I think, it's mentioned earlier in the thread.

[the other bob wilson]

As stated to get elected a candidate has to wait for an election. ATM there are people who want a chance but are being denied. Sounds like a closed shop to me

Who’s denying them?

[splott parker]

As stated to get elected a candidate has to wait for an election. ATM there are people who want a chance but are being denied. Sounds like a closed shop to me

Isn’t that how elections work? Candidates have to wait until the next election, they don’t decide when one takes place.

[NinianKnight]

Isn’t that how elections work? Candidates have to wait until the next election, they don’t decide when one takes place.

Yes but RichardM made a comment that because there were spare spaces on the trust board they were open to all. I was pointing out that there may be spare places but they are not accessible until there is an election. Generally when there is an election the seats will be filled but over time seats will become available as people leave for whatever reason. So his point was not really valid unless elections for spare seats are held when they become available

[NinianKnight]

Who’s denying them?

I assume it is the trust board. If there are spare seats why not allow an election to fill them?

RichardM made a comment that because there were spare spaces on the trust board they were open to all. I was pointing out that there may be spare places but they are not accessible until there is an election. Generally when there is an election the seats will be filled but over time seats will become available as people leave for whatever reason. So his point was not really valid unless elections for spare seats are held when they become available

[NinianKnight]

You don't just have elections because some people joined the trust and want them, you have them when the constitution says, which is next year I think, it's mentioned earlier in the thread.

You are now contradicting your self. Previously you said because there were spare seats that proved they were open to all. But now you say that people should wait years to take up that opportunity

May be the constitution needs changing if the trust board truely wants to claim they are inclusive and democratic