A WEEK AGO TODAY

Its also possible that Carl thought Mike was representing the board and that it was OK to post , this is just a misunderstanding and being blown out of proportions a little , so Mike re think your resignation . Im a Trust member and am entitled to my say , hope everybody else commenting is a member too ??

Its also possible that Carl thought Mike was representing the board and that it was OK to post , this is just a misunderstanding and being blown out of proportions a little , so Mike re think your resignation . Im a Trust member and am entitled to my say , hope everybody else commenting is a member too ??

Those are my thoughts aswell. Hope things sort themselvs out, & i hope Mike stays on the board, & if Carl was able to join the board i think it would be a good thing & i would support him to.

Yes I am a Trust member and no, Mike did not have the right to ask Carl if he wished to be co-opted onto the CCST board.

However, I feel that Mike has realised his error and I understand his reasoning, although I do not agree with it.

Personally, I hope his resignation offer isn't accepted.

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.

Mike it is a matter of opinion if you have made a mistake and my opinion is you didn't. You are a free thinking spirit and that's what the Trust needs desperately and why I rate you so highly.

If BlueIntheHeath has decided to resign from the Trust after you have kindly contacted him, then so be it.

More importantly if I was you I would be more concerned about how many members will leave the Trust if you stand down because I for sure will be one of them.

Mike Quotes "evident inside sources "

Mike, personally I dont think there is any need to resign, from what I have seen is that you so far have done a good job in your role.

As for" evident inside sources " lets keep reality here , it's a football gossip messageboard, rather like watching Corination Street. I don't think there are any insiders at the Club at all.

My god, just wait until TLG gets his teeth into this one.

My god, just wait until TLG gets his teeth into this one.

He hasnt got any teeth.

Mike made a small mistake, everyone makes em, leave him be. Mistakes are from learning from at whatever age.

I'm not apportioning any blame on Mike - this is just a situation that TLG will revel in, thats all.

I'm not apportioning any blame on Mike - this is just a situation that TLG will revel in, thats all.

he's currently banned from here

I'm sure he will read the thread on the CCMB and make his feelings known on this issue.

i would suggest that forum members should not publish or reveal private messages or e,mails they have received from other members and then these situations would not arise.

I'm sure he will read the thread on the CCMB and make his feelings known on this issue.

didnt know it was over there ?

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/fudfo.php?t=msg&t ... art=0&rid=

i would suggest that forum members should not publish or reveal private messages or e,mails they have received from other members and then these situations would not arise.

Steve they chatted and I was privy to the conversation.

["Forever Blue"]["steve davies"]i would suggest that forum members should not publish or reveal private messages or e,mails they have received from other members and then these situations would not arise. [

Steve they chatted and I was privy to the conversation.[/quote]


yes thanks for that annis you just spoilt my snootiest post ever

["Forever Blue"]["steve davies"]i would suggest that forum members should not publish or reveal private messages or e,mails they have received from other members and then these situations would not arise. [

Steve they chatted and I was privy to the conversation.

yes thanks for that annis you just spoilt my snootiest post ever [/quote]

I hope Mike does not Resign and continues the good work he has started at the Trust, I had no time for the Trust before, but I have to admit since Mike joined them, they have some chance of maybe achieving a few things now. They def need people like Mike, Honest/Speaks out and knows what he is on about

I'm not apportioning any blame on Mike - this is just a situation that TLG will revel in, thats all.

Well, a similar thing kinda happened with TLG.

From memory, he wasn't going to stand initially - lack of time. Steering group members "convinced" him to stand (from memory, I seem to recall TLG saying he was told the post wouldn't require much of his time) - and let's be honest, first election, anyone involved in setting it up would get voted in regardless.

Granted not directly co-opting, but the steering committee played a part in convincing him to stand.

As a trust member I don't think there was anything wrong with Mike asking Carl. I'm sure they both know it was subject to the rest of the board of directors agreeing to it.

People may not like the way it can be done, but it will be part of the model rules, and from memory(it certainly used to be the case) every trust abides by those same rules.

I'm not apportioning any blame on Mike - this is just a situation that TLG will revel in, thats all.

Well, a similar thing kinda happened with TLG.

From memory, he wasn't going to stand initially - lack of time. Steering group members "convinced" him to stand (from memory, I seem to recall TLG saying he was told the post wouldn't require much of his time) - and let's be honest, first election, anyone involved in setting it up would get voted in regardless.

Granted not directly co-opting, but the steering committee played a part in convincing him to stand.

I think theres a big difference between Mike and " The text book Loner Guy."

To be honest, I've zero doubt it's fully explained in the Trust rules, available to all members to read.

Just seems a lot seem to have signed up without bothering to fully read them.

Carl has tried ringing Mike to speak to him, even know the usual snipers on ccmb are saying different and I am quite upset Mike has made out Carl hasnt, Carl cant use emails etc in his work time, but he rang me for Mikes tel no and then rang him to no avail.

Why are we even bothering talking about the trust about 2-300 house holds thats all it stands for, its a joke they never syood up to the riddler and they dont either with gethin jenkins. My opinion a joke end off.

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.

I do know all that Mike, I was involved with the Trust from day 1 and had to listen to all the boring debates on this.

However I've NEVER heard the board of a society like this called 'DIRECTORS' before.

I can't remember if the co-opting thing got approved or not when the constitution was put together, must have fallen asleep at this point.

Lawnmower they are a joke

Eddie, I know virtually every person on that board, and get on well with all of them. Quite a few post on here from time to time, and there are several very bright and dedicated guys and girls on it. I won't name names.

I also know how much hard work has been put in over the past few years to get it all set up. they do a fair bit for the club, - Sludge could tell you more.

People having cheap pops from outside (mainly because they don't like , who isn't a board member any more) don't help things at all.

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.

Mike.

I'm sure this will blow over .

I hope you don't resign. This maybe hasn't been handled very well - it would have been better if it had been broached with the trust board before being made public, but whats done is done.

Those who don't attempt to achieve anything never make mistakes .

At least Mike and Carl have now spoke and there is No problem with them two, just other people from the dark side stirring it up again.

That's good news.

Mike has apologised and stated his reasons.

I would be very interested to hear why Carl chose to make a private conversation public.

It would help to dispel the obvious conspiracy theory.

That's good news.

Mike has apologised and stated his reasons.

I would be very interested to hear why Carl chose to make a private conversation public.

It would help to dispel the obvious conspiracy theory.

I was privy to that conversation and Carl said he wanted other peoples views before he gave his decision.

Whos removed my post?