Sent out to Trust members this morning.

[J R Hartley]

I must have imagined the around 150 new members Clive and I registered in the past ten weeks or so then - the Trust may be a lot of things, but it can hardly be called a closed shop.

Increased membership by almost 50%? Well done you. Its a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on the board but you kid yourself its not.

[the other bob wilson]

Increased membership by almost 50%? Well done you. Its a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on the board but you kid yourself its not.

How on earth can it be a closed shop when

1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.

[TDA]

How on earth can it be a closed shop when

1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.

There are a lot of good suggestions in the letter of withdrawal, which I think the Trust should and will adopt in the coming months / years. Plenty of new blood and expertise to drive those along as well.

However, given the way this came about and some of the individuals involved, how many people believe that this was the entire agenda of that group?

[NinianKnight]

How on earth can it be a closed shop when

1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.

Surely you are conflating 'membership' with 'the trust board?' Whilst new members have been allowed to join the makeup of the trust board is the same, hence an accusation of closed shop surrounding its governance. There are spare seats on the TB which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a hotile reaction to these new members.

On your second point the trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surley the TB would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.

For the record I think the new members should bide their time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats avaiable. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the trust as it would be case of the same old etc

[TDA]

Surely you are conflating 'membership' with 'the trust board?' Whilst new members have been allowed to join the makeup of the trust board is the same, hence an accusation of closed shop surrounding its governance. There are spare seats on the TB which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a hotile reaction to these new members.

On your second point the trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surley the TB would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.

For the record I think the new members should bide their time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats avaiable. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the trust as it would be case of the same old etc

The board had every right to oppose the motion but was prepared for it to go to a vote. It is the proposers who have bottled out.

[NinianKnight]

There are a lot of good suggestions in the letter of withdrawal, which I think the Trust should and will adopt in the coming months / years. Plenty of new blood and expertise to drive those along as well.

However, given the way this came about and some of the individuals involved, how many people believe that this was the entire agenda of that group?

I assume their agenda would been made clear in their representations during the election process? But since this has been denied for now, we will have to wait and see.

[TDA]

I assume their agenda would been made clear in their representations during the election process? But since this has been denied for now, we will have to wait and see.

I seriously doubt that would have become apparent until they had overall control of the board.

[TDA]

I assume their agenda would been made clear in their representations during the election process? But since this has been denied for now, we will have to wait and see.

Nothing has been denied. They have withdrawn their motion.

[Upthebluebirds]

Surely you are conflating 'membership' with 'the trust board?' Whilst new members have been allowed to join the makeup of the trust board is the same, hence an accusation of closed shop surrounding its governance. There are spare seats on the TB which could have been offered but no such offer has been made, indeed from what I have read there has been a hotile reaction to these new members.

On your second point the trust board opposed the motion of the SGM to hold elections early. If it wasn't a closed shop then surley the TB would welcome a chance to defend their record but it failed to do so.

For the record I think the new members should bide their time, work on their ideas and at the next election win the seats avaiable. If for any reason this didn't happen then it is time to give up on the trust as it would be case of the same old etc

I wish you wouldn't repeat nonsense about a closed shop - because it is completely wrong. A member can stand for election to the board EVERY single year. Three members put their names forward and joined the board, two in 2024 and one this year. It is up to members to put their name forward with their platform and the skills they would bring. So next year there will be another opportunity for members to stand for election.

[the other bob wilson]

There are a lot of good suggestions in the letter of withdrawal, which I think the Trust should and will adopt in the coming months / years. Plenty of new blood and expertise to drive those along as well.

However, given the way this came about and some of the individuals involved, how many people believe that this was the entire agenda of that group?

I agree that it would be good to get more of an idea about what they might offer in terms of social media aimed at a younger age group.

As you imply though, the feel has always been one of a hostile takeover and, for all of the talk of closed shops, the facts are that the Trust have been more than willing to incorporate new blood on to the Committee on a regular basis.

[Canton Stand Blue]

I’ll be at the SLO meeting tonight. As ever, happy to chat through any or all of the above. Just say hi, I promise I’m not as sinister as some might claim.
You’ll also note, as with all our emails to the board, we’re yet to receive a response, even an acknowledgement. The same themes pop up again and again, must be more politics to play, rather than trying to get stuff done.

[RichardM]

I’ll be at the SLO meeting tonight. As ever, happy to chat through any or all of the above. Just say hi, I promise I’m not as sinister as some might claim.
You’ll also note, as with all our emails to the board, we’re yet to receive a response, even an acknowledgement. The same themes pop up again and again, must be more politics to play, rather than trying to get stuff done.

I've know idea who you are, don't assume everyoneon this board is ITK.
When you talk about "our emails to the board" who are you speaking on behalf of? I assume you mean emails to the trust board. Were the people who sent the emails members of the trust when the emails were sent?

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

I've know idea who you are, don't assume everyoneon this board is ITK.
When you talk about "our emails to the board" who are you speaking on behalf of? I assume you mean emails to the trust board. Were the people who sent the emails members of the trust when the emails were sent?

No

[TheBirchgrovePub]

Withdrawl of SGM

As we have stated throughout the past 6–8 weeks, our only aim has been to strengthen the Trust. We thank the Board for confirming that we approached them amicably for a conversation on 8 September — a request that was set aside and ultimately left us with no option but to pursue an SGM to gain some traction.
Given the unwarranted hostility from the Board, we have chosen to withdraw our request for an SGM. Despite our repeated efforts to reach common ground, the current Board has shown itself to be unwelcoming of new members and intent on fostering division. The FSA highlighted to us numerous examples of many Trusts caught in internal conflict, who achieved little for years. We have no wish to see our Trust follow the same path.

While we remain confident that our request for an election would have succeeded, we see no value in pursuing it further under such conditions. We will have needed to work together as a group to achieve change, the current Board have made it clear they don't wish to pursue this as an option. A Trust consumed by internal conflict, rather than progress, helps no one.

Actions speak louder than words. While the Board has been quick to highlight its past achievements, progress over the last three years has slowed considerably. Aside from its commendable work on the Football Governance Bill, little of substance has been achieved. Attendance at FAB or FSA meetings is expected, not exceptional, and running a food bank twice a year is admirable but minimal given that there are eight current Board members to share the workload.

Many Board members publicly state that their main goal is to grow the Trust’s membership — particularly among younger supporters — yet:
The Trust has little or no presence on the major social media platforms used by 16–40-year-olds.

YouTube: Account with 2 Subscribers and 1 Video close to 4 years ago

TikTok: No account I could find

Instagram: 55 followers, 2 posts in 12 months

The recurring agenda item on membership growth has been removed from Board meetings. The trust must be more transparent with its membership and detail its successes and failures.

No membership drives are recorded in Trust minutes or on the website in the past five years.
Plans are often mentioned — results are not.

We hope this period prompts the Board to reflect on its practices and refocus on its purpose: to represent all members. The Trust is not a private club; it belongs to its membership.

We believe the Trust must now:
Hold a democratically contested election within six months — the first in five years.

Update the Society Rules to align with current FSA standards. We note it ticks many of the boxes currently missing, including the SGM process the board have noted they've struggled with.

Actively expand its membership, particularly among underrepresented groups.

Implement service-level agreements to ensure timely responses to members. Emails cannot go unanswered for weeks.

Broaden accessibility and engagement by regularly seeking membersÂ’ views and representing them through the FAB, rather than operating in isolation.

Follow due democratic process by allowing members to nominate and elect representatives to external committees such as the FAB — as other Cardiff City supporter bodies do.

We note the BoardÂ’s claim that our SGM proposal would have altered the Society Rules. Ironically, the wording mirrored that of the last two Trust elections published on the website. It appears there is one rule for the Board, and another for its members.

Finally, we thank the FSA for its support and its commitment to monitor and audit the Trust moving forward. We are confident they will be treated with greater respect and cooperation than we have been.

We hope the board will alter course in future and welcome new ideas and members with greater openness. The time for devisive communication and pushing an “us vs them” can come to an end. Now is the time for Trust to back up its words, with action and grow it. The last 6-8 weeks have shown it is possible, without much effort. Membership is the highest it’s been in years and without us even implementing our desired Social media strategy. We hope this is not wasted.

Thanks,
Rhys

AKA you have realised you have no chance so thrown your toys out the pram.

Nice bit of attention seeking but leave it to the grown ups.

Maybe hang around for a few months and you’ll be taken seriously but I’d imagine you’ll be nowhere to be seen come the next trust election as you’ve had your 5 minutes of fun but when it comes to putting actual effort in for little reward you’re nowhere to be seen

[TheBirchgrovePub]

How on earth can it be a closed shop when

1. There’s not been one new application turned down for any reason since the increase in new members began in early August?
2. You can call it “a closed shop to newcomers trying to get on board” as much as you like, but by cancelling the SGM , they’ve failed to test their theory.

Nailed it

[Canton Stand Blue]

AKA you have realised you have no chance so thrown your toys out the pram.

Nice bit of attention seeking but leave it to the grown ups.

Maybe hang around for a few months and youÂ’ll be taken seriously but IÂ’d imagine youÂ’ll be nowhere to be seen come the next trust election as youÂ’ve had your 5 minutes of fun but when it comes to putting actual effort in for little reward youÂ’re nowhere to be seen

Thanks for the response.

I signed up at the start of August, I confirmed on my application I wanted to help. YouÂ’ll probably know there is a field for it on the application.

I chased it up a few weeks later, still waiting to hear back. We ended in this debacle .. You can probably see from the above IÂ’m keen to assist. Let me know, happy to do so.

[TDA]

Thanks for the response.

I signed up at the start of August, I confirmed on my application I wanted to help. YouÂ’ll probably know there is a field for it on the application.

I chased it up a few weeks later, still waiting to hear back. We ended in this debacle .. You can probably see from the above IÂ’m keen to assist. Let me know, happy to do so.

Over on my usual board, we had a visit last evening from one of your group, "SnoopyStorm".

Whilst at the outset, he maintained much the same things as you do, in response to direct questions, eventually the masked slipped and it became evident that he was far more concerned about the Trust's failure to criticise the club owner and his board of directors.

This is what right minded supporters feel was really the motivation behind your calling of the SGM and why they have come together to put a stop to the nonsense.

The Friday meeting is still taking place in the form of an open discussion on recent events. Why not go along, make yourself known and see how your suggestions on the development of the Trust can be implemented?

[TheBirchgrovePub]

Thanks for the response.

I signed up at the start of August, I confirmed on my application I wanted to help. YouÂ’ll probably know there is a field for it on the application.

I chased it up a few weeks later, still waiting to hear back. We ended in this debacle .. You can probably see from the above IÂ’m keen to assist. Let me know, happy to do so.

Funny to see the difference between your posts on here and on the other board in terms of attitude towards the trust.

Well for a start I'm guessing you will be attending on Friday evening to meet the trust board members and begin building relationships with them as a proposed future board member of the trust?