Mole Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 As much as i respect and admire Connor for his hard work, it's a sad indictment on our supporters groups that we have no effective fans body to represent us at this time. The Saints Trust is dead now - due to foolish decisions made at it's conception. I'm not sure the shell of the Trust can now be salvaged - such were the calamitous errors made early doors, but there is a slim chance it could be re-born. That said the gross errors of judgement made in the past must be learnt from, and therefore they need bringing into the open, so these mistakes are not replicated. What mistakes were made by the Trust that ensured it failed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 As much as i respect and admire Connor for his hard work, it's a sad indictment on our supporters groups that we have no effective fans body to represent us at this time. The Saints Trust is dead now - due to foolish decisions made at it's conception. I'm not sure the shell of the Trust can now be salvaged - such were the calamitous errors made early doors, but there is a slim chance it could be re-born. That said the gross errors of judgement made in the past must be learnt from, and therefore they need bringing into the open, so these mistakes are not replicated. What mistakes were made by the Trust that ensured it failed? I think the biggest mistake was not appointing a National Front supporting Burger King supervisor as Chairman. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I think the biggest mistake was not appointing a National Front supporting Burger King supervisor as Chairman. :roll: When you state chairman are you refering to the PLC Chairman, the Football Chairman, or Stevens old position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 When you state chairman are you refering to the PLC Chairman, the Football Chairman, or Stevens old position? It's ph, FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 It's ph, FFS. OK Steven with a "ph", what mistakes do you think you made in running the Trust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 As much as i respect and admire Connor for his hard work, it's a sad indictment on our supporters groups that we have no effective fans body to represent us at this time. You're right there. We need one coherent fans group, we can all muster behind. To have that you need one coherent leader. Alas cometh the hour.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Ok ok, I'll be leader. Was that really so hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 It failed because a fan group will never please enough of the people for enough of the time. There are those who think that a fans group should not speak on their behalf because the very existence of a fans group which espouses an opinion reduces the importance of an individual and removes their right to speak their case individually. The same people are highly suspicious of anyone who puts themselves forward as any kind of spokesperson for the group - often to the point of openly questioning their motives and suggesting that they are involved only to serve themselves - whether with or without evidence to that effect. Ironically, I think the amount of flak which a spokesperson would get means that you probably discourage a number of quieter, less media-focussed people anyway. There are also others who think that if they are going to bother offering their support to a fans group then that group had better bl**dy work hard on their behalf. There should be regular news updates and continual votes to make sure everyone's views are taken into account. Lord help anyone issuing a statement without polling the members and publishing the results. Every time. For everthing. Everything. I think any fans group will die if it tries to please everyone. SISA lasted so long because we all know at most six people were responsible for any decisions and that those decisions were made on the basis of a manifesto drawn up in someone's bedroom the night before and released to the press the next day. As a member of SISA you didn't know what you were signed up to until the committee told you. They may not have represented your views but it worked. Maybe if the Trust could decide whether to put everything to the vote or bully you into toeing the line, it would work too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Bones Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 What mistakes were made by the Trust that ensured it failed? Gee's Stanley - Easy to sit back and cast stones. You've just slayed the trust for it's mistakes yet then ask what they were ? So you are ****ting on something you have basically said you know nothing about - How unusual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 It's kind of ironic that we criticize the Big 3 for not getting their sh*t together when we couldn't find any degree of unanimity if our lives depended on it. And, funnily enough, it all seems to boil down to the same things - competing egos and people who can't moderate their views in order to create something more cohesive. I wish we could find something that works because the club we all claim to love has never needed that more than it does right now. What's that old motto - "It's not why we can't but how we can". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 apathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 (edited) The Trust never got past giving the impression that it was a small clique of individuals trying to secure celebrity status and special treatment from the club. I actually think this was a little unfair, I was at the meeting down the Holiday Inn and acutally stood and asked a couple of questions (it was just after a couple of the guys were shown around Staplewood by Clive Woodward and Lowe), and the "board" gave me the impression of sincerity of wanting to help press for change at the club. Overall, a couple of things at the meeting suggested to me that it was ultimately destined to fail (1. Whinging about what right did the Trust board have to make decisions without a full vote of the memberhip and 2. some old c**t sat behind me ranting about why Steve Godwin dared to sit on the board when he didnt have an ST - the sort of attitude we see on here every day...), but I came away with some hope. Even when the likes of Steve Godwin and Steve Grant left it, the stink remained because Mr. Über-Fan took over (strange how I never saw him at some of the early meetings...). Then came the cheap beer promotions.... And the repeated droning for a fan (obviously someone from the trust) to be on the board of the club..... And its complete absence from activity whilst this season unravelled.... The final straw for me was pushing its private pre-match bar arrangements whilst leaving a 16 year old kid alone to organise the only co-ordinated and publicised activity to demonstrate that the fan base was reaching the end of its tether. As far as I am concerned, its a busted flush. I received an e-mail from it this week, didnt even read it before I clicked "Delete". Edited 27 February, 2009 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 (edited) Gee's Stanley - Easy to sit back and cast stones. You've just slayed the trust for it's mistakes yet then ask what they were ? So you are ****ting on something you have basically said you know nothing about - How unusual Au contrare, i could write a thesis on the failings of the Saints Trusts but i'll stick to bullet points and, if you require, expand on them on request. The failings include, but are not limited to, failings in the following key areas: *Honesty and Integrity - 838 members the website proclaims. *Financial prudence - buying 1885 shares when the money should have been used to grow. *Independence - accepting share proxies from the major share holders. *Accountability - A f.o.t.b constrained by confidentiality clauses. *Communication - because the subs were squandered there was no money left to communicate with. Edited 27 February, 2009 by Mole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diggers Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 As far as I am concerned, its a busted flush. I received an e-mail from it this week, didnt even read it before I clicked "Delete". it was the same press release that told "us" members what "we" apparently feel about the best way forwards. strange, when I spoke to Nick recently I don't remember agreeing with him, in actual fact he didn't mention this new pack with the Devil at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 it was the same press release that told "us" members what "we" apparently feel about the best way forwards. strange, when I spoke to Nick recently I don't remember agreeing with him, in actual fact he didn't mention this new pack with the Devil at all. This is find truely disgusting. Basically Nick Illingsworth is using the Trust to give credence and weight to his personal opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Bones Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Au contrare, i could write a thesis on the failings of the Saints Trusts but i'll stick to bullet points and, if you require, expand on them on request. The failings include, but are not limited to, failings in the following key areas: *Honesty and Integrity - 838 members the website proclaims. *Financial prudence - buying 1885 shares when the money should have been used to grow. *Independence - accepting share proxies from the major share holders. *Accountability - A f.o.t.b constrained by confidentiality clauses. *Communication - because the subs were squandered there was no money left to communicate with. Then why are you asking what mistakes they have - Sounds like you have written a book on it already. Perhaps a thread that maybe, just maybe suggested ways the Trust could be made better ? Anyway - enough of my whining. Does the trust still exist ? Could another take its place ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Then why are you asking what mistakes they have - Sounds like you have written a book on it already. In opening post i stated "gross errors of judgement made in the past must be learnt from, and therefore they need bringing into the open, so these mistakes are not replicated." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 The Trust never got past giving the impression that it was a small clique of individuals trying to secure celebrity status and special treatment from the club. I actually think this was a little unfair, I was at the meeting down the Holiday Inn and acutally stood and asked a couple of questions (it was just after a couple of the guys were shown around Staplewood by Clive Woodward and Lowe), and the "board" gave me the impression of sincerity of wanting to help press for change at the club. Overall, a couple of things at the meeting suggested to me that it was ultimately destined to fail (1. Whinging about what right did the Trust board have to make decisions without a full vote of the memberhip and 2. some old c**t sat behind me ranting about why Steve Godwin dared to sit on the board when he didnt have an ST - the sort of attitude we see on here every day...), but I came away with some hope. Even when the likes of Steve Godwin and Steve Grant left it, the stink remained because Mr. Über-Fan took over (strange how I never saw him at some of the early meetings...). Then came the cheap beer promotions.... And the repeated droning for a fan (obviously someone from the trust) to be on the board of the club..... And its complete absence from activity whilst this season unravelled.... The final straw for me was pushing its private pre-match bar arrangements whilst leaving a 16 year old kid alone to organise the only co-ordinated and publicised activity to demonstrate that the fan base was reaching the end of its tether. As far as I am concerned, its a busted flush. I received an e-mail from it this week, didnt even read it before I clicked "Delete". Sums up by experience , i was at that meeting , joined the Trust and believed that it was the way forward. I also have to say in the peoples defence that it was a massive undertaking to try and get this up and running effectively. A full time job trying to be done part time by volunteers unless their are a couple of rich retired people out there prepared to run it , this size operation is always going to fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Sums up by experience , i was at that meeting , joined the Trust and believed that it was the way forward. I also have to say in the peoples defence that it was a massive undertaking to try and get this up and running effectively. A full time job trying to be done part time by volunteers unless their are a couple of rich retired people out there prepared to run it , this size operation is always going to fail I take on your point about running the Trust being a time consuming exercise, but it's presumably the same for every Trust. Not every Trust failed like the Saints Trust did. It's easy to blame Nick illingsworth for putting the final nail in the coffin, but the real damage was done early doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 They need to market the thing in order to gain some genuine membership, if the numbers subscribed to it reached a reasonable percentage level of the fan base then it can be considered representative. Personalities will always attract or repel people, so get a balance of people on the board not indifferent to the Lowe vs Crouch arguments. Drop the fan on the board thing for the minute so the sceptical do not solely see that as your goal They were just too quiet for too long and when a statement was made it seemed to conflict with the opinions of those they believe they represent, accusations of associations to those within the club has been damaging, fail to understand why on match days or at the demonstrations they were not there canvassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 it failed because of two words - nick illingworth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 They need to market the thing in order to gain some genuine membership, if the numbers subscribed to it reached a reasonable percentage level of the fan base then it can be considered representative. Personalities will always attract or repel people, so get a balance of people on the board not indifferent to the Lowe vs Crouch arguments. Drop the fan on the board thing for the minute so the sceptical do not solely see that as your goal They were just too quiet for too long and when a statement was made it seemed to conflict with the opinions of those they believe they represent, accusations of associations to those within the club has been damaging, fail to understand why on match days or at the demonstrations they were not there canvassing I agree, they need to rebrand. From reading the articles on the Trusts website i don't think the board is an issue, but Nick Illingsworth as chairman is a massive issue. He needs to be toppled with a vote of no confidence by the few members that remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 It has failed because too many of their board are more interested in celebrity status than actually representing their fans. They STILL show 838 members on their website... I have asked and asked for the 'real' figure to be updated, they won't change it because they know that if they are know to the club to have less than 100 members ( which they have ) then they will not get anywhere near enough respect for them to be able to campaign for a fan on the board. The Trust have done absolutely NOTHING in the most troubled times in our history. In the last 18 months, they have.... 1) Found a place to have a few beers together pre-match. 2) Had a quiz night. 3) Ran a couple of coaches up to matches. Now, does that represent value for money? Why on earth would anyone join simply for that? The nail in the coffin was the complete contempt they showed for their fans in the last two weeks, coming up with two proposals without even canvassing their members. One of them, the wacky council buy-out, was them claiming to represent their membership and saying they wanted Council Tax money spent on buying the stadium. To not speak to their members about that, show's just how much contempt they have for their membership. The other one involves local MPs going on the board, again, to not canvass their members is an absolute disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 it failed because of two words - nick illingworth! No, thats unfair. It was already floundering before, but he just provided the kiss-of-death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 They failed because of their timidity, at a time of the Club's darkest hour they went missing. Just like the TSA did. They failed because of their inability to have an effective discussion with their supporters. A discussion that would have included votes on what their priorities should be. In this age of online communication the Trust focused more on operating as a Committee that soaked up precious time. What a shower. They had no vision on how it should operate effectively. A 16 year old had more passion and drive than the lot of them. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Just disband. The pontifications in it's name does it no credit. What is really needed is a body to represent the the 4000 shareholders who own 20% of the club. But if they can't be bothered what chance does a talking shop have. Bit like the fluoride consultation sham, ask, then do as they wanted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 it failed to some extent because people like Alpine Saints and StuRomseySaints wanted it to fail and its far easier to throw stones than it is to build something some of the abuse directed on here and in other places at people involved in the Trust made them give up on supporters groups in general, and not just the Trust but Basingstoke Saints, London Saints, the Ted Bates Trust and Saints Away Supporters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 it failed to some extent because people like Alpine Saints and StuRomseySaints wanted it to fail and its far easier to throw stones than it is to build something some of the abuse directed on here and in other places at people involved in the Trust made them give up on supporters groups in general, and not just the Trust but Basingstoke Saints, London Saints, the Ted Bates Trust and Saints Away Supporters That's right, I wanted it to fail. that's why I went to its early meetings and paid to join AND proxied my small shareholding. F**king idiot.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 (edited) it failed to some extent because people like Alpine Saints and StuRomseySaints wanted it to fail and its far easier to throw stones than it is to build something some of the abuse directed on here and in other places at people involved in the Trust made them give up on supporters groups in general, and not just the Trust but Basingstoke Saints, London Saints, the Ted Bates Trust and Saints Away Supporters You call it abuse, i'd call it constructive criticism. When the Trust announced the proxies from Wilde and Crouch i was critical. When the Trust squandered money on shares - money that should have been used to build the Trust i was critical. When the Trust went all to get a fan on the board i told them Wilde was leading them up the garden path. When the Trust didn't give their true membership figure i was critical. As a fully payed up member at the time i think it was my right to constructively criticise. I did so because the decisions that were being made were ludicrous. I have been proved right on all counts. It's easy to lay blame on others, but the truth is that the Trust failed because of poor judgement by it's initial chairman and board. Edited 27 February, 2009 by Mole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I think this Connor guy clearly represents the fans more than the Trust - maybe he should be chosen to run the thing? At the moment it appears Illingsworth is too scared/unwilling to upset Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Any volunteers to take it on from on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 it failed to some extent because people like Alpine Saints and StuRomseySaints wanted it to fail and its far easier to throw stones than it is to build something some of the abuse directed on here and in other places at people involved in the Trust made them give up on supporters groups in general, and not just the Trust but Basingstoke Saints, London Saints, the Ted Bates Trust and Saints Away Supporters No, I kept asking questions and kept getting fobbed off. It failed because they have never represented their members, more interested in sitting on the fence so they don't compromise their relationship with the board rather than campaigning and representing their membership base. With regards to TSA, the reason they shut was because the organisers jumped ship when they realised that it was going to be overshadowed by Saints Trust. The hole ' don't knock them for trying ' is a bit tedious. Now apart from a pre-match bar, a quiz night and a couple of coach trips..... what have the Saints Trust done? What PRO-ACTIVE things have they done? Those are the reasons it failed, not because of 2 people on an internet forum! With this whole 'fans parliament' thingy, the Trust is useless. Once inevitable administration happens at some point and we are returned to a Ltd Company, it's even more pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 You call it abuse, i'd call it constructive criticism. When the Trust announced the proxies from Wilde and Crouch i was critical. When the Trust squandered money on shares - money that should have been used to build the Trust i was critical. When the Trust went all to get a fan on the board i told them Wilde was leading them up the garden path. When the Trust didn't give their true membership figure i was critical. As a fully payed up member at the time i think it was my right to constructively criticise. I did so because the decisions that were being made were ludicrous. I have been proved right on all counts. It's easy to lay blame on others, but the truth is that the Trust failed because of poor judgement by it's initial chairman and board. I think the Trust failed because they were rushed into something by Hone and Oldknow that they were not happy with at the time. The Trust had a 5 year timetable to elect a fan on to the board, and Oldknow came along and pushed for it within months, well before the Trust was ready. They then held guns to the heads of other supporters groups to get them to affiliate which caused a lot of mistrust and bad feeling. They insisted the numbers from those groups would count towards the 15 percent of ST holders figure that was chosen to be able to elect the fan. 1650 in that particular year. That figure was achieved, Hone and Oldknow then shafted all the fans by alleging that it was against the law to have a fan on the board (or similar) and that effectively killed the Trusts main aim, and coupled with the fact that the Trust meekly accepted it and didn't campaign further meant that people just lost interest. Whether it was a deliberate policy of Hone's or not I don't know, but by insisting that the groups affiliate they caused rifts that probably can't be healed now. A lot of good people put a lot of hard work in to getting the Trust where it was, and I don't think too many of them are still on the Trust board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 The trust can never be all things to all people, such is the myriad of views within the fan base. What the trust can do well is promote ideas where the majority of the fan base are behind. Recently I believe they have attempted that and although there looks like no easy answer, I do believe they are on the correct lines. The idea of trying to secure the stadium for the future is a very good one, although trying to get the council to fund that looks doomed in this current climate. But it is something that is desperately required to be done. If we lose the stadium, all our worst nightmares would probably come true. Everyone has their opinion about who should be running the club, from one to none. In practical reality we have just got to get on with any combination of Crouch, Wilde or Lowe, because there is no one else out there prepared to invest. It would be far better if we had all 3 working together. I do not like the idea of a fan on the board, just exactly where has that got us except further in the financial mire. I don't like the idea of an independent chairman, far prefer if they got together and selected one from the 3 and let him get on with it within the limits set out before hand. Sometimes it can be more effective when you have something being driven single mindedly in one direction (even when the direction is not perfect), rather than driven by consensus and committee (give a committee the remit to design a horse and they probably end up with a camel scenario). It would not worry which of them did it as long as we work within a plan that makes sense financially. For once the trust is doing the right thing, maybe not totally perfect but something within practical bounds that makes sense and the majority of the fans can get behind. If we do not come together as a fan base things will only get worse and I really believe the trust can do something by working on ideas that bring us all together. After the euphoria of the Preston game had settled down, I have seriously considered giving football a rest for a season or two, irrespective of who is in the board room or whether we avoid relegation and administration. I do like the direction the trust is going in of late and is the only thing that gives me some hope for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I like paragraphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 lack of communication with members - I do not know if I am one or not, have not received any correspondence since my initial certificate. long periods of inactivity followed by random statements which are based on fantasy land ie the council buying the stadium, getting a fan on the board etc, It should focus on getting a critical mass of supporters in order to demonstrate it truely can provide the voice of the fans and not a few individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 27 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 February, 2009 lack of communication with members. To be fair, and i'm no fan of Mr Goodwin, they did communicate and make an effort in the early days, but i don't think many people bothered filling out the questionnaires and sending them back. However of late the situation has become really bad with Nick Illingsworth issueing statements based purely on his own personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 It's easy to slag people off on the net without actually getting off your arse and doing something yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 It's easy to slag people off on the net without actually getting off your arse and doing something yourselves. And it is easy to sound off the odd statement to the local press withought actually getting of their arses and doing anything. Oh wait....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 And it is easy to sound off the odd statement to the local press withought actually getting of their arses and doing anything. Oh wait....... ok Stu why not do something yourself? i don't know trust people myself but i'm pretty sure it was a good idea in principle. I don't live on Southampton so dont know all facts etc it seems to me that anyone who trys to do something gets slagged off etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 We clearly need a meeting to put together a committee to get people out of the committee to get people out of the Saints board committee. I am herewith forming the People's Front Of Southampton FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tango Man Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 I think the Trust like the club lost the real focus , and with it the support. Certainly the club made no effort to encourage supporters groups to survive . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 I have a initial healthy scepticism of these types of organisation to be honest. They tend to be overly political in nature and highly unfocused in strategy. They seem to serve best the people that form them, rather than their 'membership'. If the Trust had a simple, focused agenda that they followed through to the end with strong broad-view leadership, it might have succeeded in recruiting more to its ranks rather then alienating its founding membership. What did happen was that once Lowe had been ousted Wilde cuddled them and the whole meaning of the Trust went limp and soft. Its now a busted flush and I can see no reason for throwing 'good money after bad'. New direction is needed - if there was a fans group with the sole aim of finding a buyer and getting the club delisted...now that might be something to rally behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 It fail(s) as its leadership have always been too close to the centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 The whole Fan On The Board thing I never got. Really, what was the point other than to say, look at us, we are so cool because we are letting a fan sit in on certain meetings. There is no point in sitting on a Board unless you can offer something other than a "presence." And there was always going to be a problem with who that fan was. Given the way that stuff gets spun on here from certain individuals, who could you trust to report back what was really being said and going on? Saints Trust? Bit of an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now