Trust Elections

And Dai? [/quote]

Yes I did [/quote]


Annis I can't understand why you are having such a go at the Trust, yet you were prepared to vote for an nutcase like Dai Hunt ? I guess you don't know Phil, Gareth or Anthony, but you know Mike and Tony, what if your vote had put Dai in instead of one of those 2 ?

And now you are slagging the Trust off again ? As the only new thing is this vote then I'd guess its because Tony missed out. I voted for Tony, but the fact is it didnt go his way and he seems to have reacted with dignity.

As for 4 votes per household, you are aware that kids can't vote aren't you ?

I've got a lot of time for your opinion on a lot of things, but when it comes to the Trust then I just don't get why you are so anti, and so many others on here are the same, mainly because they don't actually know the people who run it. if they did then I think the reactions may be different.

I'm dissapointed by some of the stuff being written on here today, by many posters.

Even at such at great time as this there is still an undercurrent of divide.

Like any organisation it's only as strong as it's membeship.

I suspect it's safe to say that very few people, if any, disagreed with the formation of a Trust. An official representative body made up of all strands of supporter opinion with direct access to the clubs hierarchy has got to be a good thing.

Members are not always going to agree with what the Trust does, or doesn't do, but surely you and others would be better remaining as members/joining to help influence policy.

What would you suggest as an alternative? No CCST? Back to the days of an "inner circle" as seen under Hammam? Or perhaps a seperate organisation - but don't get me started on that!!!!!

Claude,

From the election figures, 619 votes were counted.

Last membership figure I heard quoted as 950. I'll use that as a base figure for calculations.

Best case? Each member only voted once. That would mean 65% of members voted. Worst case as I believe members had 4 votes they could use, 16% of the members of the trust voted. We know, as people have stated here, they used the four votes, hence it's perfectly reasonable to believe the true percentage is closer to the worst case scenario than the best case scenario. Granted, I'd expect there was an age restrcition which prevented a number of young kids voting, but still not ideal from people you'd expect to be more committed.

Which would indicate that the average member is pretty apathetic. Want the idea of the Trust, want to pay to be in it, just not really that bothered about the policies and direction it should take.

Now, taking that best case scenario, of 1 person 1 vote, 619 members took part in the democratic elections out of a possible 950. 950 members, taking a base figure of 15k STs, is 6% of the fanbase that can be considered "committed". If 619 voted, that figure drops to 4%. Obviously that figure decreases based upon the lower the number of people voting was.

We know the trust get media coverage, comments are regularly printed in the Echo when views sought. The point being, unless the trust can figure out a way to actively recruit more members who want to take part actively, it'll be a footprint in the sand within a few years. The key figure any Trust offical needs is the retention rate - some people will have joined for the novelty, then not renewed. Some will have become disgruntled and not renewed.

It's the case, like it or not, that for whatever reason the Trust - either the idea of the Trust, the actions of the trust or the leadership of the Trust have not grasped the hearts and minds of supporters out there. With that in mind, unless things change around, the Trust will be left an irrelevance as it doesn't have the weight of numbers behind it.

To get things into perspective, the march organised here, organised virally, without meetings and subcommittees attracted what, 2k people. Which is double the Trust membership.

So whilst you want constructive criticism only, I post the question back to you. Without having anywhere near the backing of a substantial number of fans, how can the club, media, other fans be expected to take the trust seriously? I mean, the letter "reminding" Paul Guy of what to do for example. How credible does the Trust look doing that when the numbers are so small?

Overanalysing it Nerd.


couple of questions.

1. What other supporters elecetion has received that number of votes ?

2. Why keep dragging the march up, I along with many Trust members was on it ? To be honest the constant use of this to knock the trust is beginning to p1ss me off, almost as much as it does defending the people that went on the march to those who didnt.

Its nowhere near a fair comparison -and you know it.

The Trust get very good media coverage due to hard work - in particular from one of the people who got voted in today - do you know which one ?

Like many good organisations the Trust seems to get slagged off by those who know little about it or those who run it.

1. What other supporters elecetion has received that number of votes ?

Isn't that a redundant argument? We're not talking about any other organisation. No other organisation (former Rams, Supporters club ) have made the claims the Trust has with regards to the impact it can have.

So far, the membership isn't holding up, like it or not.

2. Why keep dragging the march up, I along with many Trust members was on it ? To be honest the constant use of this to knock the trust is beginning to p1ss me off, almost as much as it does defending the people that went on the march to those who didnt.

I'd suggest you read the point again. the whole aim of the Trust to give a voice to fans. Like it or not, the march organised on an ad hoc basis attracted far more people than the Trust currently has as members- the point you are failing to recognise is simply that, for whatever reason, the Trust hasn't got the support that was envisaged.

The Trust get very good media coverage due to hard work - in particular from one of the people who got voted in today - do you know which one ?

Honestly? I don't care. The Trust, again like it or not, get proportionally far more coverage than the membership figures warrant.

Like many good organisations the Trust seems to get slagged off by those who know little about it or those who run it.

It also gets blindly defended by those who want it to succeed despite the fact the membership figures place them firmly in minority of fans.

With such a small proportion of City fans as members, any owner could easily refuse to engage with the Trust because it simply doesn't have the numbers.

The issue of the membership numbers is simply a priority for the Trust. I know of five people not renewing. Do those people, in your mind, know little about it or who run it?

1. What other supporters elecetion has received that number of votes ?

Isn't that a redundant argument?

ABSOULUTELY NOT, BUT ITS CLEARLY ONE WHICH YOU AREN'T PREPARED TO ANSWER, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS.


We're not talking about any other organisation. No other organisation (former Rams, Supporters club ) have made the claims the Trust has with regards to the impact it can have.

So far, the membership isn't holding up, like it or not.

DO YOU HAVE FIGURES ? IF SO WELL DONE.

2. Why keep dragging the march up, I along with many Trust members was on it ? To be honest the constant use of this to knock the trust is beginning to p1ss me off, almost as much as it does defending the people that went on the march to those who didnt.

I'd suggest you read the point again. the whole aim of the Trust to give a voice to fans. Like it or not, the march organised on an ad hoc basis attracted far more people than the Trust currently has as members- the point you are failing to recognise is simply that, for whatever reason, the Trust hasn't got the support that was envisaged.


NO NEED, I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ON ABOUT . YOU USE IT TO SLAG THE TRUST OFF, YET ITS TOTALLY IRRELEVENT TO THE DEBATE.

The Trust get very good media coverage due to hard work - in particular from one of the people who got voted in today - do you know which one ?

Honestly? I don't care. The Trust, again like it or not, get proportionally far more coverage than the membership figures warrant.

I THINK YOU'VE SUMMED IT UP THERE. YOU DON'T CARE, AND BLINDLY SLAG IT OFF WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHO OR WHAT IS BEING DONE.
GOOD WORK FROM THE TRUST TO GET THE COVERAGE, BUT YOU WOULDNT SEE IT THAT WAY.

Like many good organisations the Trust seems to get slagged off by those who know little about it or those who run it.

It also gets blindly defended by those who want it to succeed despite the fact the membership figures place them firmly in minority of fans.

With such a small proportion of City fans as members, any owner could easily refuse to engage with the Trust because it simply doesn't have the numbers.

The issue of the membership numbers is simply a priority for the Trust. I know of five people not renewing. Do those people, in your mind, know little about it or who run it?

MEMBERSHIP WILL ALWAYS BE AN ISSUE, BUT AFTER ONLY 18 MONTHS IN EXISTENCE ITS STILL WELL ABOVE THAT OF MANY SIMILAR CLUBS WHO'VE BEEN GOING FOR YEARS. WHILST PEOPLE LIKE YOU CONTINUE TO HAVE A 'SNIPE' (I KNOW YOU'D LIKE THAT WORD ) THEN MORE WILL BE PUT OFF.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOUR 5 PEOPLE ARE, BUT THERE ARE A FAIR FEW WHO SEEM TO REGULARLY CHANGE THEIR MIND ON IT.

I'M OFF TO PLAY FOOTY IN A MINUTE AND SOME OF THE STUFF I'VE READ TONIGHT IS EITHER GOING TO LEAD ME TO BREAK SOMEONE'S LEG OR HAVE A HEART ATTACK TRYING

Indeed. Which is why you gave a poor answer.




I believe if you do the search here, you'll find Trust members have bandied figures ranging from 850-950.


No, you are yet again deliberately missing the point. The Trust is intended to give fans the voice, work for fans, et al. Fans haven't bought into it, hence the point you want to bury your head in the sand about is that the ad hoc march, organised in the space of a few weeks, contained more fans than the Trust has members. The point, which I seem to have to spell out very slowly for you, is that for whatever reason, fans haven't bought into the Trust concept, aims et al. THAT is something the Trust needs to work on.



Now your arguments are descending to fanboy level. The Trust commenting in the media presents the Trust as representing the entire fanbase - whereas the only mandate is to represent it's members. It's exactly the same with regards to the media constantly seeking Vince Alms views. Both organisations represent a tiny fraction of the fanbase of the club.

Skipped the rest, can't be arsed sorting the damn quoting system your messed up out.

That's democracy gentlemen and clearly some of you don't like it.

It's very sad, childish even, for people to now resign from CCST just because their favoured candidates didn't get elected.

Surely the mature attitude is to remain a member and change from within. After all, you have a committee member who's a regular poster on here so you can vent your spleens at him.

Perhaps a little less "sniping" (this boards favourite word at times) and a little more constructive criticism wouldn't go amiss? Although some posters do make fair criticisms of CCST, there are far to many who just throw abuse.

I find that rather sad as we are so close to moving into an exciting new era at our great club. A time I never forsaw in my 42 years of watching the Bluebirds.

Claude, Its Not Sniping My Opinion OF THE TRUST is they dont achieve anything and Do not represent hardly anyone, Its a Joke.

Annis,

you sinpe regularly at the trust because they dont sing off the same hymn sheet as you, you have the annis attitude of its my way or no way!! Also the sheep off this bord that follow you are very vocal on there keyboard opinions. There was all the bravado about some of your flock standing and getting on the board but when push came to shove they all bottled and then tried to make it look like some joke. The trust has had teething problems its a year old please give it a chance other clubs have very effective trusts, even if you dont support it perhaps you would consider not slagging it so the sheep will not follow. Even if you regular flock joined the trust I dont think it would add up to 20 or more new members.

This board likes to call anyone with a different opinion to your inner circle "nerds, keyboard warriors etc" but perhaps it time for the trust snippers to put up or shut up. The trust is democratic not autocratic like some message boards.

Que, the banning order and deletion of the message.

That's democracy gentlemen and clearly some of you don't like it.

It's very sad, childish even, for people to now resign from CCST just because their favoured candidates didn't get elected.

Surely the mature attitude is to remain a member and change from within. After all, you have a committee member who's a regular poster on here so you can vent your spleens at him.

Perhaps a little less "sniping" (this boards favourite word at times) and a little more constructive criticism wouldn't go amiss? Although some posters do make fair criticisms of CCST, there are far to many who just throw abuse.

I find that rather sad as we are so close to moving into an exciting new era at our great club. A time I never forsaw in my 42 years of watching the Bluebirds.

I feel offended that I am being classed as a "sheep" because I posted my thoughts on here. (Jeez , sheep are for shagging not following). People have given their honest opinions , whether good or baaaaa'd.
I have never met Annis and if I disagreed with him I would say so , and he would respect my right to disagree.


Claude, Its Not Sniping My Opinion OF THE TRUST is they dont achieve anything and Do not represent hardly anyone, Its a Joke.

Annis,

you sinpe regularly at the trust because they dont sing off the same hymn sheet as you, you have the annis attitude of its my way or no way!! Also the sheep off this bord that follow you are very vocal on there keyboard opinions. There was all the bravado about some of your flock standing and getting on the board but when push came to shove they all bottled and then tried to make it look like some joke. The trust has had teething problems its a year old please give it a chance other clubs have very effective trusts, even if you dont support it perhaps you would consider not slagging it so the sheep will not follow. Even if you regular flock joined the trust I dont think it would add up to 20 or more new members.

This board likes to call anyone with a different opinion to your inner circle "nerds, keyboard warriors etc" but perhaps it time for the trust snippers to put up or shut up. The trust is democratic not autocratic like some message boards.

Que, the banning order and deletion of the message.

Annis,

you sinpe regularly at the trust because they dont sing off the same hymn sheet as you, you have the annis attitude of its my way or no way!! Also the sheep off this bord that follow you are very vocal on there keyboard opinions. There was all the bravado about some of your flock standing and getting on the board but when push came to shove they all bottled and then tried to make it look like some joke. The trust has had teething problems its a year old please give it a chance other clubs have very effective trusts, even if you dont support it perhaps you would consider not slagging it so the sheep will not follow. Even if you regular flock joined the trust I dont think it would add up to 20 or more new members.

This board likes to call anyone with a different opinion to your inner circle "nerds, keyboard warriors etc" but perhaps it time for the trust snippers to put up or shut up. The trust is democratic not autocratic like some message boards.

Que, the banning order and deletion of the message.

Excuse me sir, Mike Rodderick (who was successfully elected) and Myself stood as members from this board, we did-not bottle it as you claim.

We are not 'sheep' I wrote my own election statement as did Mike. If we have opinions about how the Trust is working (or not working as the case may be) then I or Mike both members of this board and the Trust we have the right to express that opinion, as do other members of this board.

Believe it or not, just because some people might agree with that opinion it doesn't mean they can't think for themselves.

We fully understand that the Trust is democratic that's why we stood and in my case was unsuccessful. I have accepted the decision and will try again next year but in the meantime I will work from the grass roots to improve things.

Therefore please stop making such offensive assumptions.

Indeed. Which is why you gave a poor answer.




I believe if you do the search here, you'll find Trust members have bandied figures ranging from 850-950.


No, you are yet again deliberately missing the point. The Trust is intended to give fans the voice, work for fans, et al. Fans haven't bought into it, hence the point you want to bury your head in the sand about is that the ad hoc march, organised in the space of a few weeks, contained more fans than the Trust has members. The point, which I seem to have to spell out very slowly for you, is that for whatever reason, fans haven't bought into the Trust concept, aims et al. THAT is something the Trust needs to work on.



Now your arguments are descending to fanboy level. The Trust commenting in the media presents the Trust as representing the entire fanbase - whereas the only mandate is to represent it's members. It's exactly the same with regards to the media constantly seeking Vince Alms views. Both organisations represent a tiny fraction of the fanbase of the club.

Skipped the rest, can't be arsed sorting the damn quoting system your messed up out.

Obviously no point in bothering then.

Makes very little difference as you'll doubtless continue having your little digs about an organisation you seem to know very little about.

You managed to march from the pub to the ground - just like me, well done, so that makes you an expert in how to run a democratic fan organisation. Or more liekly just to sit back and moan.

I'm not missing the point just disagreeing with it, just like you choose to ignore any question I ask which you haven't got a smartass answer to.

And Dai?

Yes I did [/quote]


Annis I can't understand why you are having such a go at the Trust, yet you were prepared to vote for an nutcase like Dai Hunt ? I guess you don't know Phil, Gareth or Anthony, but you know Mike and Tony, what if your vote had put Dai in instead of one of those 2 ?

And now you are slagging the Trust off again ? As the only new thing is this vote then I'd guess its because Tony missed out. I voted for Tony, but the fact is it didnt go his way and he seems to have reacted with dignity.

As for 4 votes per household, you are aware that kids can't vote aren't you ?

I've got a lot of time for your opinion on a lot of things, but when it comes to the Trust then I just don't get why you are so anti, and so many others on here are the same, mainly because they don't actually know the people who run it. if they did then I think the reactions may be different.

I'm dissapointed by some of the stuff being written on here today, by many posters.

Even at such at great time as this there is still an undercurrent of divide.[/quote]


I voted for Dai, because thats how much RESPECT I HAVE FOR THE TRUST, Once you, Carl, Steve Davies and Gwyn withdrew I knew I had wasted my time rejoining them, Tony Williams was our last hope.

We fully understand that the Trust is democratic that's why we stood and in my case was unsuccessful. I have accepted the decision and will try again next year but in the meantime I will work from the grass roots to improve things.

That's the spirit, Tony. I hope others on here follow your example.

(and it's Roderick - one d, by the way, everyone).

If it is £2,500 personally I think that's piss poor, the Rams with the help of the CCSC raised £13,000 with one bucket collection for the Tsunami appeal and we had a crowd of only 15,000 that day.I didn't even see a bucket on my way in way out or in the ground, something just ain't right and whilst |I did give serious thought about standing for election and trying to help, some people I spoke to high up in the club,helped sway my opinion, I would have liked to think I could have helped to change things, but it may be the people there at present are happy the way things are and don't want change.

Democracy is needed, structure and organisation is important, but it would appear that more effort is taken making sure everything is P.C. and in line with National guidleines etc. that sorting out and generating more red tape is leaving liitle time for issues that stimulate interest and support from the masses.

Gwyn

I don`t know which way you came into the ground , but I was one of the bucket collectors and was stood at the Ninian Gates (with Tracey Marsh of the Trust)from about 6.15 until 7.15 - left then as I am a fan like everyone else and didn`t want to miss kick -off so allowed time to return the bucket to the collection point and get into the ground.People were very good in terms of contributing as far as I am concerned.Would have been nice to see some of Annis` cash , but he did have both hands full with giant hotdogs .

Also , I know that Graham Keenor was in the Premier seating area (where I think you were)before the game doing the same but maybe he had stopped collecting by the time you got there(?).

Many people posting on here , you included , make valid points that the Trust has to change if it is to fulfil its aims and hopefully 3 of the 4 board members elected being new to the board will help.

I am genuinely sorry that you chose not to stand for election yourself but hope that you really mean that comment about wishing to try to help even if that is outside any formal role in the Trust. I can`t speak for other Trust board members - they are big enough and capable enough to speak for themselves , but personally I have no fear of change whatsoever and welcome any constructive criticism of what we do , particularly if accompanied by suggestions for how to do it better.

For that reason , I was concerned to read Tony Williams` post on here earlier of the reaction he felt he got at the last open meeting ( I wasn`t there ) as it seems the points he was trying to raise were exactly that.

Keith

That's democracy gentlemen and clearly some of you don't like it.

It's very sad, childish even, for people to now resign from CCST just because their favoured candidates didn't get elected.

Surely the mature attitude is to remain a member and change from within. After all, you have a committee member who's a regular poster on here so you can vent your spleens at him.

Perhaps a little less "sniping" (this boards favourite word at times) and a little more constructive criticism wouldn't go amiss? Although some posters do make fair criticisms of CCST, there are far to many who just throw abuse.

I find that rather sad as we are so close to moving into an exciting new era at our great club. A time I never forsaw in my 42 years of watching the Bluebirds.

Claude, Its Not Sniping My Opinion OF THE TRUST is they dont achieve anything and Do not represent hardly anyone, Its a Joke.

Annis,

you sinpe regularly at the trust because they dont sing off the same hymn sheet as you, you have the annis attitude of its my way or no way!! Also the sheep off this bord that follow you are very vocal on there keyboard opinions. There was all the bravado about some of your flock standing and getting on the board but when push came to shove they all bottled and then tried to make it look like some joke. The trust has had teething problems its a year old please give it a chance other clubs have very effective trusts, even if you dont support it perhaps you would consider not slagging it so the sheep will not follow. Even if you regular flock joined the trust I dont think it would add up to 20 or more new members.

This board likes to call anyone with a different opinion to your inner circle "nerds, keyboard warriors etc" but perhaps it time for the trust snippers to put up or shut up. The trust is democratic not autocratic like some message boards.

Que, the banning order and deletion of the message.

Whatever your name is ????

I am surely allowed to give my opinions on them, I have paid my membership 2 years running. You have slagged fellow members off on here, who show their names and have their own opinions. Your the Sniper, your on the wrong mb.

What I find sad about the whole thing is the total votes add up to around 620, now when you consider that each person could make 4 votes and you would assume most people used their whole 4 votes, then just over 155 people voted in total.

And out of the 155 voters, some of them would have obviosly come out of the same household, not suggseting that anyone would tell their wives who or how to vote, but I'll leave it to your own imagination to work out if it could have happened.

Not getting a dig in, but hardly a mass dmonstration of grass root broad spectrum interest, but don't know how they can turn it around or solve the apathy.

Its probably like all elections , the level of apathy is usually high , even for far more important things like general elections. I will ask Geraint , the Trust secretary, to publish what percentage of the membership chose to vote as I don`t know the figures myself ( I only found out the results this afternoon after they had been published on the Trust website and elsewhere).

so how much did the bucket collections make then towards the Fred Kenor statue coz nobody from the Trust has bothered to inform any of its members yet ??

How quick did you expect the information to be released.?

The money was collected last night and I suspect wasn`t counted until this morning as the match finished so late.

And full details have appeared today on the Trust website.

I would hardly describe that as being not bothered as you suggest.

Dai Hunt only 8 ????????????? we demand a re-count

unlucky mate, you sound like a top fella, maybe next time

I am 1 of the 8 ............. maybe we can form a group called the Dai Hunt 8

I was speaking to Dai before the game on Wednesday and he was genuinely convinced he was going to be voted in.