All this animosity toward the Trust

and especially Dave Sugarman seems extremely unjust. Just like many here the guy bleeds Cardiff City blue

As with most petty internet squabbles, in real life it's slightly different, and most of what's conveyed online is a lot different to what's discussed'when saturday comes'. Not everyone is going to be as passionate, and as pro-active as Annis,Gwyn and the majority of marchers,but the Trust in my humble opinion could be one of the most important moves Cardiff City fans have made, especially in these crucial,anxious times. We're not Manchester United who with over 100,000 trust members can organise these demos/scarf colour changing/mass flag hurling at the drop of a hat,but we have a cross section of fans who have an important role to play in the next couple of priceless months,who need to STICK TOGETHER

Then, in an ideal world Annis/Dave/Keith Morgan et al can work together,to give the new owners as much guidance as possible. The Trust should have a seat on the new board. We all have the same objective. The dickheads who have almost run the club into the ground couldn't careless. But we'll all be here long after they f**k off to Switzerland with our money. I think the stress that everyone is going through is part and parcel of these disputes, but it's time for a bit of the old siege mentality that what we've been famous for in the past

and especially Dave Sugarman seems extremely unjust. Just like many here the guy bleeds Cardiff City blue

As with most petty internet squabbles, in real life it's slightly different, and most of what's conveyed online is a lot different to what's discussed'when saturday comes'. Not everyone is going to be as passionate, and as pro-active as Annis,Gwyn and the majority of marchers,but the Trust in my humble opinion could be one of the most important moves Cardiff City fans have made, especially in these crucial,anxious times. We're not Manchester United who with over 100,000 trust members can organise these demos/scarf colour changing/mass flag hurling at the drop of a hat,but we have a cross section of fans who have an important role to play in the next couple of priceless months,who need to STICK TOGETHER

Then, in an ideal world Annis/Dave/Keith Morgan et al can work together,to give the new owners as much guidance as possible. The Trust should have a seat on the new board. We all have the same objective. The dickheads who have almost run the club into the ground couldn't careless. But we'll all be here long after they f**k off to Switzerland with our money. I think the stress that everyone is going through is part and parcel of these disputes, but it's time for a bit of the old siege mentality that what we've been famous for in the past

In the 80s or early 90s the current board would never have got away with their antics-mind you in the 80s there were no retail parks-just 2500 pissed off people watching the likes of Andy Kerr, Carlton Leonard and Kevin Meacock.

Dave Sugarmans big problem in this sad state of affairs is not polling the trust members regarding the march. Him and the main players could have done a ballot/internet vote faitrly easily.

CityGent, who should a group representing 6% have board representation? What makes them more important than the other 94% of city fans? *

The Trust have badly misjudged people's feelings over this issue, not balloting members a highly arrogant step. Maintaining dialogue with a proven liar is clearly the way forward - except no mandate has been given for that approach. That level of arrogance is staggering.

In a situation where the existence of the club can be at stake, trust activities have invovled disparaging an organised march which gained a large amount of publicity. Writing the odd latter / statement as if Ridsdale was a naughty child.

The trust have shown none of the leadership needed to sway hearts and minds of the 94% NOT with the trust.

* Estimate based on 900 trust members, 15k ST holders.

exactly why i didn't join the trust . in my studies alway shows too many fractions battling it out with each other in most clubs up and down the country .

the ideas are great tho and the people who get involved are 100% committed in most cases

CityGent, who should a group representing 6% have board representation? What makes them more important than the other 94% of city fans? *

The Trust have badly misjudged people's feelings over this issue, not balloting members a highly arrogant step. Maintaining dialogue with a proven liar is clearly the way forward - except no mandate has been given for that approach. That level of arrogance is staggering.

In a situation where the existence of the club can be at stake, trust activities have invovled disparaging an organised march which gained a large amount of publicity. Writing the odd latter / statement as if Ridsdale was a naughty child.

The trust have shown none of the leadership needed to sway hearts and minds of the 94% NOT with the trust.

* Estimate based on 900 trust members, 15k ST holders.

Fair points, but with a pretty new organisation with poor numbers(i'm sure TLG would have loved to have a lot more members by now), even if Trust members were balloted, i doubt there would have been many more present at the march. The publicity and the march itself was long-overdue i agree and was a success, but although slow-burning since its birth, i do believe we need a Trust, who rightly or wrongly i'd rather have in the tent spitting out, and not the other way around

CityGent, who should a group representing 6% have board representation? What makes them more important than the other 94% of city fans? *

The Trust have badly misjudged people's feelings over this issue, not balloting members a highly arrogant step. Maintaining dialogue with a proven liar is clearly the way forward - except no mandate has been given for that approach. That level of arrogance is staggering.

In a situation where the existence of the club can be at stake, trust activities have invovled disparaging an organised march which gained a large amount of publicity. Writing the odd latter / statement as if Ridsdale was a naughty child.

The trust have shown none of the leadership needed to sway hearts and minds of the 94% NOT with the trust.

* Estimate based on 900 trust members, 15k ST holders.

Fair points, but with a pretty new organisation with poor numbers(i'm sure TLG would have loved to have a lot more members by now), even if Trust members were balloted, i doubt there would have been many more present at the march. The publicity and the march itself was long-overdue i agree and was a success, but although slow-burning since its birth, i do believe we need a Trust, who rightly or wrongly i'd rather have in the tent spitting out, and not the other way around

The problem is the Trust have misjudged people's views. You have the situation where some Trust oficials see a march as pointless yet others were present on the march! The members were not given a say - which is the point of the Trust, surely? Justifying an ambivalent approach by saying only 7 trust members emailed in?

With the club in such a state, the members HAVE to have a say, have to be consulted over the Trust approach, not the arrogance of presuming a mild letter stating the obvious will have any effort or assuage people's fears

A Trust can be useful - see the jacks with regards to VERY direct action against Petty. Ours has so far shown itself to be toothless and lacking in ideas.

CityGent, who should a group representing 6% have board representation? What makes them more important than the other 94% of city fans? *

The Trust have badly misjudged people's feelings over this issue, not balloting members a highly arrogant step. Maintaining dialogue with a proven liar is clearly the way forward - except no mandate has been given for that approach. That level of arrogance is staggering.

In a situation where the existence of the club can be at stake, trust activities have invovled disparaging an organised march which gained a large amount of publicity. Writing the odd latter / statement as if Ridsdale was a naughty child.

The trust have shown none of the leadership needed to sway hearts and minds of the 94% NOT with the trust.

* Estimate based on 900 trust members, 15k ST holders.

Fair points, but with a pretty new organisation with poor numbers(i'm sure TLG would have loved to have a lot more members by now), even if Trust members were balloted, i doubt there would have been many more present at the march. The publicity and the march itself was long-overdue i agree and was a success, but although slow-burning since its birth, i do believe we need a Trust, who rightly or wrongly i'd rather have in the tent spitting out, and not the other way around

The problem is the Trust have misjudged people's views. You have the situation where some Trust oficials see a march as pointless yet others were present on the march! The members were not given a say - which is the point of the Trust, surely? Justifying an ambivalent approach by saying only 7 trust members emailed in?

With the club in such a state, the members HAVE to have a say, have to be consulted over the Trust approach, not the arrogance of presuming a mild letter stating the obvious will have any effort or assuage people's fears

A Trust can be useful - see the jacks with regards to VERY direct action against Petty. Ours has so far shown itself to be toothless and lacking in ideas.

Let's all hope things improve then.

As for Swansea, Wallis and the old Queens lot break in the main office, Mike Lewis gets a thick ear offa fat c**t,and a few years later they're on the verge of the promised land. The rate the blood pressures are rising collectively among us lately,what odds Ridsdale and/or Paul Guy not ending up on their arses before May?

Whatever the trust numbers. they only have the good of the club at heart. and i for one respect them for that

The problem is the Trust have misjudged people's views. You have the situation where some Trust oficials see a march as pointless yet others were present on the march! The members were not given a say - which is the point of the Trust, surely?

What a load of nonsense.

You claim the Trust has misjudged people's views. Whose views exactly?

Many Trust members evidently thought the march was futile. Many others evidently thought it was worthwhile. Those who thought it was futile didn't take part. Those who thought it was worthwhile did. So how on earth would a ballot of members altered that situation? Do you think Trust members are drones who can't think for themselves?

You claim the members were not given a say, but that's rubbish. Trust members were free to say whatever they wanted about the march! The organisation is not a dictatorship. If anyone wanted to say something about this event, they were free to do so. As it happened, only eight people in total bothered to contact the Trust and express an opinion about it.

So let's say the Trust had ballotted its 850 members regarding the value of the march, and let's say 60% of those who answered thought it was not worth backing - should we then have issued a statement demanding the other 40% stay away from the march? And what if 60% had said it was worth backing - would we have then had to tell the 40% who thought it was futile to turn up anyway or we'd cancel their memberships?

It's just utter tripe. Anyone who wanted to turn up at the march was free to do so. Anyone who didn't want to didn't have to. Simple as that. Absolutely nothing the Trust could have said or done would have changed that situation.

The problem is the Trust have misjudged people's views. You have the situation where some Trust oficials see a march as pointless yet others were present on the march! The members were not given a say - which is the point of the Trust, surely?

What a load of nonsense.

You claim the Trust has misjudged people's views. Whose views exactly?

Many Trust members evidently thought the march was futile. Many others evidently thought it was worthwhile. Those who thought it was futile didn't take part. Those who thought it was worthwhile did. So how on earth would a ballot of members altered that situation? Do you think Trust members are drones who can't think for themselves?

You claim the members were not given a say, but that's rubbish. Trust members were free to say whatever they wanted about the march! The organisation is not a dictatorship. If anyone wanted to say something about this event, they were free to do so. As it happened, only eight people in total bothered to contact the Trust and express an opinion about it.

So let's say the Trust had ballotted its 850 members regarding the value of the march, and let's say 60% of those who answered thought it was not worth backing - should we then have issued a statement demanding the other 40% stay away from the march? And what if 60% had said it was worth backing - would we have then had to tell the 40% who thought it was futile to turn up anyway or we'd cancel their memberships?

It's just utter tripe. Anyone who wanted to turn up at the march was free to do so. Anyone who didn't want to didn't have to. Simple as that. Absolutely nothing the Trust could have said or done would have changed that situation.

And yet again, a passive / aggressive response. Highly predictable.

Let's invert your argument. Say 60% of this answering thought it was worth backing -would you still have backed it based upon your views upon it? In fact your point is indeed worthless because you and other officials decided NOT to ballot the membership.

Have the Trust balloted members upon the current approach - namely writing ineffectual letters. If you and other officers are too arrogant to consult the membership in our current situation, how do you expect any more people to join?

Who has decided the trust's current approach, TLG? The members? Really?

The fact remains, like it or not, the march attracted more people and more media attention than the Trust has. that's a major problem for the Trust.

But that's ok, should the worst happen, you can write a stern letter to Ridders. that'll really work.

EDIT:

And are you still going to peddle the "On behalf of thousands of fans" line from the statement? You don't have that mandate. Bigging the numbers up to boost the Trust seems baffling.

Last edited by nerd on Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am greatly saddened that whilst the club is in dnager we have all this sniping and nastyness going on

I have had a f*cking gutsfull of it all

Its either one way of the other

well, f**k all that shite

I support protests and marches and also support the trust , the supporters club and anything else that is being done for the good

I am too old for all this bollocks

If people want to continue falling out when we all want whats best for the club then f**k it

see you all down the game

Good post that by city gent, I will stay with the trust for the time being were all cardiff and we shouldnt have a civil war type situation.

anything that may help the city is cool with me. but i cant understand why all the diffrent factions cant unite as one.

It's just utter tripe. Anyone who wanted to turn up at the march was free to do so. Anyone who didn't want to didn't have to. Simple as that. Absolutely nothing the Trust could have said or done would have changed that situation.

eer part from the fact that you tried to dissuade people from attending the march and have tried to discredit it every day since because it was such a success in both numbers and profile sense?

Your personal hatred is RUINING any UNITED ACTION. LEAVE THE TRUST NOW. FALL ON YOUR SWORD. YOU SHOULD NOT WAIT TO BE 'VOTED OUT'. YOU ARE NOT GORDON BROWN. JUST A SILLY MAN WITH A NAPOLEON COMPLEX WHO IS RUINING A TRUST WHICH IS NOT EVEN GOT GOING YET.

Are some people on here dull or what? As TLG says everyone can make their own minds up if they wanted to march, people dont need the trust to make their minds up for them! By the way I'm a trust member, but fully agreed with the march. Do you see me slagging off TLG?

Are some people on here dull or what? As TLG says everyone can make their own minds up if they wanted to march, people dont need the trust to make their minds up for them! By the way I'm a trust member, but fully agreed with the march. Do you see me slagging off TLG?

No we are not dull at all. If the great idea is to act as individuals then what is the point of having a collective organisation like the Trust?

We keep getting told that the Trust is a democratic organisation set up to follow the wishes of its membership. Yet when someone like Nerd makes a very reasonable point about whether the Trust Board has a mandate, he is told he is talking utter tripe and anyone can make up their own minds whilst the Trust Board carries on with it's own agenda.

That just makes no sense whatsoever and the failure to get a mandate goes directly against the Trust's own consitution. On that basis alone the WHOLE of the Trust Board should stand down.