Trust Membership

[Redondo Saint]

Where exactly does the 10 quid go?

How many shares does the trust 'represent'?

 

What exactly are you (Minty) trying to achieve that will be for the benefit of fellow Saints fans?

 

Maybe people don't think the trust will achieve any of its aims and is therefore not a good idea?

I think this is more of a reason for its lack of support rather than a natural instinct to condemn or hurl abuse by others.

 

The majority of shareholders support the current board. They have invested more than a tenner and that's why they have the influence and make the decisions.

[70's Mike]

Where exactly does the 10 quid go?

How many shares does the trust 'represent'?

 

What exactly are you (Minty) trying to achieve that will be for the benefit of fellow Saints fans?

 

Maybe people don't think the trust will achieve any of its aims and is therefore not a good idea?

I think this is more of a reason for its lack of support rather than a natural instinct to condemn or hurl abuse by others.

 

The majority of shareholders support the current board. They have invested more than a tenner and that's why they have the influence and make the decisions.

 

not sure about the last paragraph the majority of SHARES may support the current board but not necessary the majority of SHAREHOLDERS , they were never asked.

 

I suppose i would have liked to see the Trust build up its holding by using Subs/ fund raising etc to offer an alternative voice to the big 2 camps which dominate SLH and really run it as a private company only paying lip service to the majority of SHAREHOLDERS.

[aintforever]

The one other thing I've learnt over the years is that to try and do ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING for the benefit of fellow Saints fans is ALWAYS destined to lead to abuse and condemnation, usually within seconds of the fanbase hearing of your efforts. As a result, I personally doubt that ANY new fan movement will be a success because too many fans are content only to whinge and expect others to do something. I hope to be proved wrong.

 

That was my initial point, when someone from the Saints Trust or SISA say something in the press you get the same nob-heads slagging them off.

 

"Who do they thing they are" "arrogant tossers don't speak for me" it's just boring now. It doesn't matter who the people are, what they stand for or what they say. Some saddo on here will have a pop.

 

The Saints trust is pretty ineffective, as is virtually every other trust or fans group in the country. But one day it might be handy for the fans to have a collective voice - like in the Branfoot issue. Having a group of people like the trust working on the fans behalf with the club at heart has to be a good thing, even if what it can achieve at the moment is very little.

[buctootim]

The trouble for any fans activist group is the same - supporters at all clubs only really want the same two things - success on the pitch and lower ticket prices. No fans group can deliver those two primary objectives so they instantly become largely irrelevant.

 

The only role I can see is either as a general purpose supporters group (social events, travel, news /website etc) or working towards one specific issue (funding a player, buying up a block of shares etc)

[StuRomseySaint]

Here is an open invitation to the board of the Trust.

 

I am willing to meet one or all of you in a pub, bring along with you your books which show each and every 838 members, and their proof of purchase.

 

Do not count Oxford Saints, London Saints etc... they would be affiliate members and it states on your website that you have none.

 

What I want to see is 838 paid up memberships.

 

If you can show them, ALL OF THEM, then not only will I join, I will donate £100 to a charity of your choice. For this I was to see signed annual subscription forms or payments within the last 12 months. Your 'assumptive freebie members' don't count either.

 

I am free most of next week and look forward to your replies.

 

See it's not all about the principles of the Trust which I hate, it is the way they go about things, the lies they tell, the misleading they do to members and the SFC board with regards to the number of paid and active members they have.... not a good start for a group of people who are claiming they will represent the fans.

[Snowballs2]

Here is an open invitation to the board of the Trust.

 

I am willing to meet one or all of you in a pub, bring along with you your books which show each and every 838 members, and their proof of purchase.

 

Do not count Oxford Saints, London Saints etc... they would be affiliate members and it states on your website that you have none.

 

What I want to see is 838 paid up memberships.

 

If you can show them, ALL OF THEM, then not only will I join, I will donate £100 to a charity of your choice. For this I was to see signed annual subscription forms or payments within the last 12 months. Your 'assumptive freebie members' don't count either.

 

I am free most of next week and look forward to your replies.

 

See it's not all about the principles of the Trust which I hate, it is the way they go about things, the lies they tell, the misleading they do to members and the SFC board with regards to the number of paid and active members they have.... not a good start for a group of people who are claiming they will represent the fans.

 

Your last paragraph reminds me of another group...headed by Rupert Lowe

[angelman]

If you don't agree with a group just ignore it. TST does try and think it represents all of us and we all know that it doesn't. Until it does begin to get some influence why not just let them get on with it?

 

As for "fan on the board", I was told that this would only ever happen if they represented 10% of the shares. That was very unlikely to ever happen so it was as good as meaningless.

 

God its nice to see such a happy group of supporters who don't slag each other off!! Just cos everything is so **** doesn't mean everyone has to bore everyone else with their truculant, snide, bickering posts.

[StuRomseySaint]

If you don't agree with a group just ignore it. TST does try and think it represents all of us and we all know that it doesn't. Until it does begin to get some influence why not just let them get on with it?

 

As for "fan on the board", I was told that this would only ever happen if they represented 10% of the shares. That was very unlikely to ever happen so it was as good as meaningless.

 

God its nice to see such a happy group of supporters who don't slag each other off!! Just cos everything is so **** doesn't mean everyone has to bore everyone else with their truculant, snide, bickering posts.

 

Well if it is 10% of the shareholding they need, then I can relax for a while at least, I only hope that Crouch does not proxy his shares to them.

 

The thing is, I think that a 'supporters club' should exist for people who would benefit from one. Maybe it is time for the Saints Trust to put their cards on the table, tell everyone the true figure of how many members they have, tell us whom they have represented in the last 2 years, what have they achieved, what actions have they taken on behalf of their shareholders etc.

 

Now as I said, if they are going to turn it into a supporters club, then so be it. What really,really gripes on me is that they claim to have 838 paid up members which is a complete LIE

 

At a guess, I would think that they have less than 100 members who have agreed to renew in the last 12 months, who have paid their subscriptions within the last 12 months. I might be wrong, and happy to be proved wrong.

 

What I am more than confident about is that their true number of paid memberships will be alot closer to 100 than it would 838. I will be happy once again to be proved wrong.

 

It seems even this forum is taking the route of assumptive renewals, which even more worryingly, could involve in people going overdrawn etc when an unexpected charge comes out in 12 months time ( or have I missed the point? )

 

Anyway, come on Saints Trust. Tell us all exactly how many members you represent? Do not include the assumptive renewals, the freebies or your affiliated members from Cardiff, Oxford, London etc.

 

Anyways, last post of the day, see you tommorow. xxx

[stevegrant]

It seems even this forum is taking the route of assumptive renewals, which even more worryingly, could involve in people going overdrawn etc when an unexpected charge comes out in 12 months time ( or have I missed the point? )

Subscribers are welcome to cancel the recurring subscription that the forum sets up on their PayPal account if they're worried about that happening. So long as the £5 has been sent, the subscription will be valid for a year. For those that have kept the recurring subscription on their PayPal account active, the subscription will automatically renew only if the funds are available. If the funds aren't available, the payment will fail and they will receive an e-mail from PayPal telling them that it failed. This will automatically make their forum subscription "inactive".

 

For those that decide to cancel the recurring payment, I don't know whether you will receive an automated e-mail or private message from the forum telling you that it's about to expire or whether it will just reset you to "Registered User" status after a year. I guess we won't know either way on that until the beginning of August 2009

[alpine_saint]

Not bothering to renew. Got better things to do and spend my money on thant listen to the Chairman bleat on twenty times a year about how he wants to sit on the board.

[AwaySaint1]

On my paypal statement it says:

 

Payment to saintswebltd-hairloss restoration fund:sgrant-£5

 

WTF is that all about?

[StuRomseySaint]

Subscribers are welcome to cancel the recurring subscription that the forum sets up on their PayPal account if they're worried about that happening. So long as the £5 has been sent, the subscription will be valid for a year. For those that have kept the recurring subscription on their PayPal account active, the subscription will automatically renew only if the funds are available. If the funds aren't available, the payment will fail and they will receive an e-mail from PayPal telling them that it failed. This will automatically make their forum subscription "inactive".

 

For those that decide to cancel the recurring payment, I don't know whether you will receive an automated e-mail or private message from the forum telling you that it's about to expire or whether it will just reset you to "Registered User" status after a year. I guess we won't know either way on that until the beginning of August 2009

 

O.K Steve, that's fair enough, you might want to make that a little clearer though. Many peoples bank accounts will allow transactions of £5 but will still charge them for an unauthorised overdraft.

 

As for the Trust, I think I have well and truely proved my point. It is about time they went back to basics and started all over again if they want any respect, and this time don't make up complete lies about having 838 paid up full members when the real number is closer to zero than it is to 838.

[stevegrant]

O.K Steve, that's fair enough, you might want to make that a little clearer though. Many peoples bank accounts will allow transactions of £5 but will still charge them for an unauthorised overdraft.

 

As for the Trust, I think I have well and truely proved my point. It is about time they went back to basics and started all over again if they want any respect, and this time don't make up complete lies about having 838 paid up full members when the real number is closer to zero than it is to 838.

The only person I know on the Trust board who uses forums regularly is Nick, and I also know that he doesn't use this forum and never has done in any of its previous guises. Therefore, I suspect that while your questions and points may have some validity, you're probably posting them on the wrong forum if you're looking for a response from them.

 

I do think you and others massively over-milk the whole "fan on the board" issue, by the way. It was one of many stated aims at the launch to get representation at board level (and it is an aim of every single supporters trust, as far as I'm aware), BUT it was part of a 5-year plan and an aim which was the "lowest-ranked" as far as I'm concerned of those stated on the Trust's website.

 

Michael Wilde then accelerated it when he put it into his manifesto, although we were still working to the original plan when Andy Oldknow invited us in for discussions on the subject. He then insisted on pushing it through as quickly as possible (in hindsight, the Trust should perhaps have just backed off) hence bringing in "affiliate" members from regional supporters groups to bring it up to the 1600 member figure mentioned by Wilde, but then when the Trust had done everything to fit their requirements, Jim Hone threw a strop over the fact that somebody from the Trust had spoken to Leon Crouch and booted it all out. Personally, I wasn't too disappointed, given that it was a long-term plan and with just over 800 members at the time I didn't feel the Trust warranted it then.

[Long Shot]

The only person I know on the Trust board who uses forums regularly is Nick, and I also know that he doesn't use this forum and never has done in any of its previous guises. Therefore, I suspect that while your questions and points may have some validity, you're probably posting them on the wrong forum if you're looking for a response from them.

 

I do think you and others massively over-milk the whole "fan on the board" issue, by the way. It was one of many stated aims at the launch to get representation at board level (and it is an aim of every single supporters trust, as far as I'm aware), BUT it was part of a 5-year plan and an aim which was the "lowest-ranked" as far as I'm concerned of those stated on the Trust's website.

 

Michael Wilde then accelerated it when he put it into his manifesto, although we were still working to the original plan when Andy Oldknow invited us in for discussions on the subject. He then insisted on pushing it through as quickly as possible (in hindsight, the Trust should perhaps have just backed off) hence bringing in "affiliate" members from regional supporters groups to bring it up to the 1600 member figure mentioned by Wilde, but then when the Trust had done everything to fit their requirements, Jim Hone threw a strop over the fact that somebody from the Trust had spoken to Leon Crouch and booted it all out. Personally, I wasn't too disappointed, given that it was a long-term plan and with just over 800 members at the time I didn't feel the Trust warranted it then.

 

 

So was it Hone or Crouch who killed off "the fan on the board idea"? I am a little confused.

[stevegrant]

So was it Hone or Crouch who killed off "the fan on the board idea"? I am a little confused.

I'm confused myself, to be honest, so my answer would be "not entirely sure, but Hone was probably the main catalyst".

 

According to the execs at the time, Crouch, McMenemy and Corbett voted against the idea of the fan on the board in a board meeting, which was brought to the table by Hone a month before it was scheduled, so none of those three actually had any real knowledge about it, and therefore couldn't really vote in favour of something they knew nothing about.

 

Hone of course stated that they voted against it because they saw themselves as already fulfilling that role. Whether that's true or not, I suspect we'll never find out, and it's ultimately irrelevant as none of them are on the board anymore anyway.

 

Hone was ****ed off that someone at the Trust (Steve Godwin, I think) had spoken to Crouch about trying to arrange a meeting with him, despite him saying something along the lines of "you'll have to ask Leon to elaborate on why he voted against it" - there was already a very distinct "them v us" situation in the boardroom at that point, hence no press statements relating to Ted Bates Statue progress being allowed through the OS because that would paint Crouch in a favourable light.

[Long Shot]

I'm confused myself, to be honest, so my answer would be "not entirely sure, but Hone was probably the main catalyst".

 

According to the execs at the time, Crouch, McMenemy and Corbett voted against the idea of the fan on the board in a board meeting, which was brought to the table by Hone a month before it was scheduled, so none of those three actually had any real knowledge about it, and therefore couldn't really vote in favour of something they knew nothing about.

 

Hone of course stated that they voted against it because they saw themselves as already fulfilling that role. Whether that's true or not, I suspect we'll never find out, and it's ultimately irrelevant as none of them are on the board anymore anyway.

 

Hone was ****ed off that someone at the Trust (Steve Godwin, I think) had spoken to Crouch about trying to arrange a meeting with him, despite him saying something along the lines of "you'll have to ask Leon to elaborate on why he voted against it" - there was already a very distinct "them v us" situation in the boardroom at that point, hence no press statements relating to Ted Bates Statue progress being allowed through the OS because that would paint Crouch in a favourable light.

 

I think I've got that - Thanks!