A WEEK AGO TODAY

I was asked by Mike Roderick, Vice Chairman of the Supporters trust, if I would like to become a director on the board of the Supporters trust.

I will be speaking to Mike in the next day or so to inform him of my decision, once I have spoken with Mike I will inform this forum of the decision also.

Feel free to leave your opinions

go for it...that my opinion...hope you dont mind

Personally I would say that is a positive move however I do think that should be a choice of every trust member in a vote.

As i say it would have my backing

Personally I would say that is a positive move however I do think that should be a choice of every trust member in a vote.

As i say it would have my backing

If it's like our trust then there are ways of appointing extra people without having to go through all that.

Yeah maybe but I think its a sticky point with a lot of fans. While I appreciate that not every decision can be put to a vote and done on behalf of the trust members I think more should be. Ive never been asked to vote for anything at all and I think it frustrates some people including me. When reading the statements of those going for it a few said they wanted more interaction with its members and those got my vote. Like i said I agree with Carl joining but IMO it should be down to the members.

Carl you have to do what you feel is the best thing for YOU first then the club

Your decision if it is a yes - then you know you have to be prepared of comments from people who do not like the fact that you are already in the know about information that is posted before being made public

Good luck in YOUR decision - I'll still read your posts with intrest what ever you decide

that choice must be yours mate,
only you can decide if its worth doing,
along with the time away from the family there is without doubt going to be a lot of flak
we all know how a minority see your posts and involvment behind the scenes at the mo

what ever your choice i know you will be doing it for the good of our club not for self glory
and for that will have my backing

Carl,
Personally, I'd love you to come on board but of course, I'd have to sell the idea to my fellow directors too. Just need to make that clear but please give it serious consideration, mate.
Mike

Carl you have gain the respect of most posters on here, and I think everyone will respect your decision.

Good luck

Carl if u do decide then go for it and if it comes to the vote then you have my backing 100% ! Your call mate but I think u should

Imo you would be a great addition to the trust.your call tho mate

Carl,
Personally, I'd love you to come on board but of course, I'd have to sell the idea to my fellow directors too. Just need to make that clear but please give it serious consideration, mate.
Mike

Mike,

Whats this 'director's' stuff ?

I don't understand what is being suggested here ?

The Trust board has a set number of members which have recently been voted on.
No offense to Carl, but how will you achieve this, has someone stepped down, or is the constitution been changed ?

First time I've heard the Trust Board called 'directors' s well

Or is it some other post ?

All seems a bit strange to me.

Personally I would say that is a positive move however I do think that should be a choice of every trust member in a vote.

As i say it would have my backing

As I understand them, the Trust's rules say that any new Board member would have to be (i) elected by the membership to join the Board or (ii) co-opted under a vote at a properly convened Board meeting where two-thirds of those present support a resolution to appoint by way of a vote. My own view at this stage in the Trust's development is that all Board members should be approved by a vote among the entire membership, but the rules allow for 3 members to be appointed through co-option.

Personally I would say that is a positive move however I do think that should be a choice of every trust member in a vote.

As i say it would have my backing

As I understand them, the Trust's rules say that any new Board member would have to be (i) elected by the membership to join the Board or (ii) co-opted under a vote at a properly convened Board meeting where two-thirds of those present support a resolution to appoint by way of a vote. My own view at this stage in the Trust's development is that all Board members should be approved by a vote among the entire membership, but the rules allow for 3 members to be appointed through co-option.

That's correct. It was my own idea to co-opt Carl but I'm a bit embarrassed it's come out in public as I haven't talked it over with anyone on the board yet.

To clear up Lawnmower's question about directors......the Trust is run by a board of directors like a company is although it's a "mutual society" registered with the FSA rather than a company registered with Companies House. Therefore, the directors are elected by the members rather than appointed by shareholders.

["Dreamlike or Chic"]"Uccello Azzurro"]="2blue2handle"]Personally I would say that is a positive move however I do think that should be a choice of every trust member in a vote.

As i say it would have my backing

As I understand them, the Trust's rules say that any new Board member would have to be (i) elected by the membership to join the Board or (ii) co-opted under a vote at a properly convened Board meeting where two-thirds of those present support a resolution to appoint by way of a vote. My own view at this stage in the Trust's development is that all Board members should be approved by a vote among the entire membership, but the rules allow for 3 members to be appointed through co-option.

That's correct. It was my own idea to co-opt Carl but I'm a bit embarrassed it's come out in public as I haven't talked it over with anyone on the board yet.

To clear up Lawnmower's question about directors......the Trust is run by a board of directors like a company is although it's a "mutual society" registered with the FSA rather than a company registered with Companies House. Therefore, the directors are elected by the members rather than appointed by shareholders.[/quote]



shame on you dreamlike pulling a peter mandelson type stunt
and carl your a grass

Personally I would say that is a positive move however I do think that should be a choice of every trust member in a vote.

As i say it would have my backing

As I understand them, the Trust's rules say that any new Board member would have to be (i) elected by the membership to join the Board or (ii) co-opted under a vote at a properly convened Board meeting where two-thirds of those present support a resolution to appoint by way of a vote. My own view at this stage in the Trust's development is that all Board members should be approved by a vote among the entire membership, but the rules allow for 3 members to be appointed through co-option.

That's correct. It was my own idea to co-opt Carl but I'm a bit embarrassed it's come out in public as I haven't talked it over with anyone on the board yet.

To clear up Lawnmower's question about directors......the Trust is run by a board of directors like a company is although it's a "mutual society" registered with the FSA rather than a company registered with Companies House. Therefore, the directors are elected by the members rather than appointed by shareholders.

In my opinion that is out of order Mike and against the whole ethos of the trust. I will cancel my DD in the morning.

Bit harsh, he is only making enquiries and why not.

BlueInHeath, There may be a certain lack of judgement (acknowledged it appears) in circulating the information in this way, but it is clearly within the rules to co-opt new Board members and seek their election by way of a vote at a properly convened Board meeting. Hold on to your membership.

BlueInHeath, There may be a certain lack of judgement (acknowledged it appears) in circulating the information in this way, but it is clearly within the rules to co-opt new Board members and seek their election by way of a vote at a properly convened Board meeting. Hold on to your membership.

So as long as an individual has the backing of two thirds of the board members they become a trustee regardless of whether the members want that person or not.

I am of the opinion the rules need changing as this can lead quite quickly to an unelected cabal having too much influence over trust decisions. The trustees are not elected to place others in positions of responsibility, they are elected to act on behalf if the members. Having the power to appointing new members is both dangerous and undemocratic.

Bit harsh, he is only making enquiries and why not.

I seem to remember when there was friction between this board and the Trust, and there were attempts at setting up a rival to the trust, there was talk of trying to get someone from here on the Trust. I think Carl getting on there would be a great move for people on here who may have views not expressed either within the trust or on other CCFC message boards

I seem to remember when there was friction between this board and the Trust, and there were attempts at setting up a rival to the trust, there was talk of trying to get someone from here on the Trust. I think Carl getting on there would be a great move for people on here who may have views not expressed either within the trust or on other CCFC message boards

anybody can join the Trust and anybody was invited to stand as Trust Board members recently , they were going to look into the costs of joining tho to simplify it , dunno if they have yet ?

BlueInHeath, There may be a certain lack of judgement (acknowledged it appears) in circulating the information in this way, but it is clearly within the rules to co-opt new Board members and seek their election by way of a vote at a properly convened Board meeting. Hold on to your membership.

So as long as an individual has the backing of two thirds of the board members they become a trustee regardless of whether the members want that person or not.

I am of the opinion the rules need changing as this can lead quite quickly to an unelected cabal having too much influence over trust decisions. The trustees are not elected to place others in positions of responsibility, they are elected to act on behalf if the members. Having the power to appointing new members is both dangerous and undemocratic.

But didn't the rules stipulate that a maximum of 3 directors can be co-opted and the Trust Board has 9 directly elected directors.

Even in the event of 3 co-opted directors there would still be a majority of 9 to 3 (or 75%) of directors who require direct election to their positions.

I'm not against co-opted directors and as long as it is not abused (for example bringing TLG back).

I think Carl should go for it although it would be a thankless job.

maybe meetings can be moved up the Valleys too ? Im sure there's a publican in Merthyr with a suitable venue which is central for all Trust members ?

BlueInHeath, There may be a certain lack of judgement (acknowledged it appears) in circulating the information in this way, but it is clearly within the rules to co-opt new Board members and seek their election by way of a vote at a properly convened Board meeting. Hold on to your membership.

So as long as an individual has the backing of two thirds of the board members they become a trustee regardless of whether the members want that person or not.

I am of the opinion the rules need changing as this can lead quite quickly to an unelected cabal having too much influence over trust decisions. The trustees are not elected to place others in positions of responsibility, they are elected to act on behalf if the members. Having the power to appointing new members is both dangerous and undemocratic.

But didn't the rules stipulate that a maximum of 3 directors can be co-opted and the Trust Board has 9 directly elected directors.

Even in the event of 3 co-opted directors there would still be a majority of 9 to 3 (or 75%) of directors who require direct election to their positions.

I'm not against co-opted directors and as long as it is not abused (for example bringing TLG back).

I think Carl should go for it although it would be a thankless job.

the point here is that you will have an unelected 25% who have a significant influence over board decisions. This 25% do not have a mandate from the members. i'd be surprised if, despite what the M&A's say, under trust law the members could be bound by the decisions of such an unelected board.

For example, what do the rules of a quorum state? could we be in a situation whereby you have a plurality of unelected trustees over elected trustees?

Simply, I'd like to know why Mr.Roderick invited Carl Curtis to become a "director" of CCST?

Surely common courtesy would have required him to have discussed it with fellow board members at CCST?

I'm equally concerned as to why Carl decided to put what was clearly a personal email into the public domain.

Either of you care to enlighten me?

Simply, I'd like to know why Mr.Roderick invited Carl Curtis to become a "director" of CCST?

Surely common courtesy would have required him to have discussed it with fellow board members at CCST?

I'm equally concerned as to why Carl decided to put what was clearly a personal email into the public domain.

Either of you care to enlighten me?

Yes, I did ask Carl if he would be willing to be co-opted on to the Trust
board because it seemed to me that it would be advantageous to the Trust to
have him working with us due to the evident inside sources he has at the
Club. My idea was if we got Carl on board, we would be in a better
position to manage how all the inside information he posts gets presented.
Putting it bluntly, I thought it would be better to have him inside the tent
peeing out, rather than outside the tent peeing in.

I was alarmed when I saw that Carl had made our brief telephone conversation
public and immediately asked him via private message to delete his post from
the board. I've also made it clear to him that the Trust board would have
the final say on whether he could be co-opted. Unfortunately, he hasn't
repsonded to my message.

I also immediatley sent a PM to BlueinHeath explaining the above and asking him to reconsider resigning his membership. I sent a further plea to him by email this morning at 10.30 this morning.

I've made a gross error of judgement as has been pointed out to me since and since I have damaged the Trust's reputation and cost us a member, I will offer my resignation at the Trust board meeting tonight.

I sincerely apologise to everyone and won't be making any further public comment until I know whether or not I am continuing on the Trust board.

no-one has to justify anything to anyone on here, jump of your high horse's ffs

Mike your jumping the gun a little here as your a valued Trust committee member and just because an " off the record " private conversation became public then it wasnt your fault was it ? I personally can see exactly where your coming from with wanting him on board but maybe Carl should have NOT posted yet .............. but again he's just being honest with people and mentioned a conversation .

Now though the doubters will say that if thats the case then why isnt the so called " truth " made public too ?

Yes, I did ask Carl if he would be willing to be co-opted on to the Trust
board because it seemed to me that it would be advantageous to the Trust to
have him working with us due to the evident inside sources he has at the
Club. My idea was if we got Carl on board, we would be in a better
position to manage how all the inside information he posts gets presented.
Putting it bluntly, I thought it would be better to have him inside the tent
peeing out, rather than outside the tent peeing in.

I was alarmed when I saw that Carl had made our brief telephone conversation
public and immediately asked him via private message to delete his post from
the board. I've also made it clear to him that the Trust board would have
the final say on whether he could be co-opted. Unfortunately, he hasn't
repsonded to my message.

I also immediatley sent a PM to BlueinHeath explaining the above and asking him to reconsider resigning his membership. I sent a further plea to him by email this morning at 10.30 this morning.

I've made a gross error of judgement as has been pointed out to me since and since I have damaged the Trust's reputation and cost us a member, I will offer my resignation at the Trust board meeting tonight.

I sincerely apologise to everyone and won't be making any further public comment until I know whether or not I am continuing on the Trust board.

Hope you stay on board