Sent out to Trust members this morning.

[TheBirchgrovePub]

See you Friday, come over for a chat. We can be grown ups. Once again you’re confusing my thoughts on the Trust and that of the Trust board. Do I think the Trust Board are under achieving yes. Do I think the Trust has done some good work at times, yes. The two don’t have to go hand in hand

See you there

[NinianKnight]

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

You can 'seriously doubt' what they would do, with a full takeover, that is your opinion which you are entitled to but it is not fact.

If these people do stand at the next election, I would join the trust and ask them questions about what they will do as I am interested. Same with the current board if they seek to be reelected.

I would then vote on what I am told. Either way I would be putting my trust in whoever I vote for to deliver on promises made.

[the other bob wilson]

As a new member , some of the “chatter” I have heard about suggests to me that the trust is in need of a complete overhaul, from top to bottom.

Isn’t it odd that the chair apparently opened a multi account on here to coincide with the upsurge in membership. Rather than being extremely exited about the new members the chatter suggested the contrary.

It’s a closed shop- for now

Having read how the term “closed shop’ has been seized upon by some as a means to justify anti Trust feelings, I must ask have people noticed that
1. The group of 29 have cancelled the SGM scheduled for Friday?
2. The Trust have nevertheless, decided to hold a meeting anyway that evening?
In what world does going ahead anyway with a meeting called off by the instigators of the SGM constitute the imposition of a closed shop policy by the Trust Committee? I’d love someone to explain to me how that works because I can’t see it myself.

[TDA]

So youve barely attended games in person for nigh on 50 years but you are patronising someone who spends a hell of a lot more money than you following City.

Just about sums up the Trust members before the recent upsurge.

Closed shop, full of arrogant self servers.

You can make your comments (based on ignorance) as personal as you want, but they are irrelevant to the issues under discussion.

[Ninian1962]

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

Just to clarify a few of the points you raise.

The make up of the Trust board is not the same. There have been three new members in the last couple of years who have been made most welcome. Every year there has been the opportunity for members to put themselves forward for election where the decision is made by the members, not the Trust board.

There is currently just one spare place on the board as the maximum number allowed under our published election policy and procedure is 9. The single space arose because a member who filled that space then decided he wouldn`t have the time to dedicate to carrying out the Trust work and stood down again. That space will be available to fill when the election timetable starts again in the Spring.

The Trust board did nothing to stop the resolution to change the Trust rules on elections to go to a vote.. Indeed we welcomed the opportunity to put it to a democratic vote of all members to take their views on whether to accept or reject the proposal. By withdrawal of the resolution by its proposers at a very late stage ( just before the deadline for proxies to be submitted) this meant that the full membership views and opinions could not be put to a vote at a formal meeting. Very disappointing as the opinions of the whole membership need to be considered.

[Ninian1962]

As a new member , some of the “chatter” I have heard about suggests to me that the trust is in need of a complete overhaul, from top to bottom.

Isn’t it odd that the chair apparently opened a multi account on here to coincide with the upsurge in membership. Rather than being extremely exited about the new members the chatter suggested the contrary.

It’s a closed shop- for now

Mr Ducie. You are entirely wrong on two counts here.

1. I am the Trust Chair and only post on this board under this user name. I have never used any multi account as you claim so not sure where you get such misleading information from. I do not post at all on any other message board.

2. New members of the Trust are always welcome and no one has been refused membership. It is indeed exciting if a large number of people join the Trust and everyone who has joined recently has received a welcome and thank you from the Trust membership secretary.

[Upthebluebirds]

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?

Exactly, they can pretend otherwise but it appears to me that the main reason for joining of the group of 29 was an attempt to try to take over the Trust by calling an election) and hike up criticism against the owner and the two main directors. They do deserve criticism particularly about the pathetic lack of communication with fans. They need to do a lot better.
I would prefer a new owner when one comes up with a good offer which the owner feels meets his value. I guess the Sala case has to be sorted first and we surely have to be back in the Championship to get a decent offer the owner might accept. Organising marches has zero impact on Vincent Tan - if he was living in Cardif it might but not otherwise. Look at what has happened with the owner of Sheffield Wednesday. He's still there as we speak.

[Mr Ducie]

Mr Ducie. You are entirely wrong on two counts here.

1. I am the Trust Chair and only post on this board under this user name. I have never used any multi account as you claim so not sure where you get such misleading information from. I do not post at all on any other message board.

2. New members of the Trust are always welcome and no one has been refused membership. It is indeed exciting if a large number of people join the Trust and everyone who has joined recently has received a welcome and thank you from the Trust membership secretary.

As if you’re going to turn down members from joining The FSA would be all over you , from those supporters raising complaints

Point 1, the chatter suggests otherwise

[splott parker]

As if you’re going to turn down members from joining The FSA would be all over you , from those supporters raising complaints

Point 1, the chatter suggests otherwise

What’s the ‘chatter’?

[the other bob wilson]

As if you’re going to turn down members from joining The FSA would be all over you , from those supporters raising complaints

Point 1, the chatter suggests otherwise

So, I’ll try again, how does this alleged closed shop operate then? Apart from the “chatter” suggesting otherwise of course.

[Ninian1962]

As if you’re going to turn down members from joining The FSA would be all over you , from those supporters raising complaints

Point 1, the chatter suggests otherwise

Any Trust has the right in certain but very limited circumstances to turn down members from joining - see the Trust Rules - FSA permission to do so is not required under those circumstances.

All I can say is the "chatter" you refer to , whatever it is and wherever it originates from, is clearly a load of b*llocks based on your claims of who I post as.

[Mr Ducie]

Any Trust has the right in certain but very limited circumstances to turn down members from joining - see the Trust Rules - FSA permission to do so is not required under those circumstances.

All I can say is the "chatter" you refer to , whatever it is and wherever it originates from, is clearly a load of b*llocks based on your claims of who I post as.

In your opinion , of course you are going to say it’s b*ollocks , I wouldn’t expect you to say anything different

[Ninian1962]

In your opinion , of course you are going to say it’s b*ollocks , I wouldn’t expect you to say anything different

Unlike the rumours you are following in your posts what I am saying is a fact as I am the person who is being falsely accused of having multi names under which I post on here. I am not sure, but I presume that board owner or a moderator on here can confirm that I only post under this one name. Or would you then accuse them of lying?
If you accuse us all of lying perhaps you could disclose on here the other names who you believe (or more likely are told by others) are me.