|
|
Post by fightforanswers on Dec 19, 2007 23:06:20 GMT 1
LePoivre posted elsewhere that the ST and SC were putting it to their members whether to merge or not. The results will be in January. Then it has been suggested they may contact FFA to ask us to get involved.
FFA has no 'members' but we do strive to represent what the majority of 'normal' Town fans would like.
So, feel free to express your opinion in the poll above.
For what it's worth, we believe that:
- it should be a pre-requisite that prior to any merger between the ST & SC all the present board/ committee members of those organisations should resign
- an open ballot should take place of all interested individuals for re-election
The two organisations, and their current incumbents have had ample time and opportunity to improve all matters relating to the best interests of HTFC supporters.
Some people have suggested they have collectively and singularly failed.
We need people who want to operate in the best interests of ALL supporters with no hidden agendas, no delusions of seats on the board, and no egos.
The ST have sat, for a very long time, on the £50k contributed by Town supporters in Town’s hour of need. It could be argued that they have done little with it for the benefit of the supporters who contributed.
Perhaps it is time for a new set of people with new ideas on how to benefit Town supporters?
|
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 1:02:13 GMT 1
The ST have sat, for a very long time, on the £50k contributed by Town supporters in Town’s hour of need. It could be argued that they have done little with it for the benefit of the supporters who contributed. At the risk of boring everyone to death, let me say once more what the facts are. The Trust consulted its members, at a time when there were over 1000, who voted by a large majority to use the £50K as seed money for funding for Storthes Hall, as that was seen as the best way of trying to ensure the future of Huddersfield Town. That money is still there for that purpose and it isn't the Trust's fault that it has taken years to make any progress on Storthes Hall. It still isn't finally resolved but, when it is, I believe that it will only be right to ask for a clear statement on the present plans for putting the funds together. Ever since it was put into a reserve fund, it has generated interest which has helped to fund the Academy, for the same reason as above. |
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Dec 20, 2007 7:41:05 GMT 1
That vote was in 2004 and involved Huddersfield Town purchasing land to develope.
I suggest the vote should be null and void as the situation as changed and we are now set to rent Storthes Hall.
"At the risk of boring everyone to death, let me say once more what the facts are."
Was there any need for that bit?
If you want to deal in facts then at least be consistent and tell "all the facts".
|
|
|
|
Post by townatheart on Dec 20, 2007 8:24:15 GMT 1
FAO BRO:
Are you suggesting that the democratically taken vote of the majority of the members of the ST should be overridden? If so, on whose say so? I am a member of the ST, and while not pretending to know all the political in's and out's that are obviously going on here, would state quite clearly that would be completely out of order. If you are suggesting that the Board could perhaps re-raise the subject to be put to the members in light of changing circumstances, with some updated alternatives (what are your suggestions by the way for the use of the money), so that the members could democratically and collectively make a fresh decision, then that is a sensible way forward in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Dec 20, 2007 9:33:23 GMT 1
The money belongs to the supporters and should be entirely up to them how they spend it.
It was also raised by all supporters as well and wherever possible their opinions should be considered also (IMO).
I suggested the vote should be null and void because the situation of Storthes Hall as changed and the actual description of the voting choices and what could accrue as also changed.
|
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 10:15:45 GMT 1
The situation at Storthes Hall may well be different to what it was in 2004 and I have been asking for some time now for a clear explanation of what the funding application is based on.
I have been told that I need to wait until the legal documents are signed before anything can go ahead.
We were told again on Monday (at the DA meeting) that such a step was imminent and I asked that it be made public asap - but still no news.
|
|
|
|
Post by terracesider on Dec 20, 2007 10:23:40 GMT 1
For what it is worth - probably not much - my view of the debate:
1) To the majority of the 8118 who turned out last (freezing cold) Satday to watch a fairly boring 3rd division game these are matters of complete indifference.
Evidence: I have supported the team (on & off) since 1962, I have a number of friends who are similarly long standing fans, & between us our involvement in supporters groups amounts to nil. We just want to see a (sometimes) decent game of football ever second Saturday in the winter.
Judging by the baffled comments of people around me at the match where they were distributed and number of FFA leaflets on the floor after said match I would assume that there isn't a ground-swell of revolutionary zeal among the supporters for "regime change"at the club!
2) I presume the £50,000 refered to above is the residue of the money collected to ensure survival during the "darkest hour" in the spring of 2003?
That being the case; an amount was contributed by myself and other non-group affiliated fans mentioned above.Speaking for myself,I did not expect at the time that the money would be "gathering interest" in a bank account over 4 years later!
IMO the money should be given immediately to the person in charge of the Commercial matters at the club to use as they judge best.We all have our ideas about how the club should go forward (£50,000 might get us a decent centre-half or Ryan Giggs' finger-nail clippings!) but Andy Ritchie & Mr.Jarvis are in a better position to make a judgement on these matters than we are,so I'll TRUST them to get on with it....
UTT
|
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Dec 20, 2007 11:57:32 GMT 1
The situation at Storthes Hall may well be different to what it was in 2004 and I have been asking for some time now for a clear explanation of what the funding application is based on. I have been told that I need to wait until the legal documents are signed before anything can go ahead. We were told again on Monday (at the DA meeting) that such a step was imminent and I asked that it be made public asap - but still no news. And we've been told for the past two years that the signing of legal documents is imminent. I've been asking for a ballot of the membership regarding this £50,000 for the past 18 months and have been supported by other members of the Trust as well but we keep getting fobbed off by this "signing is imminent" bollocks. |
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 16:49:26 GMT 1
But what are you going to ballot on, Stan?
We need to know the current situation - and we sill don't know the details.
|
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 16:54:09 GMT 1
IMO the money should be given immediately to the person in charge of the Commercial matters at the club to use as they judge best.We all have our ideas ... but Andy Ritchie & Mr.Jarvis are in a better position to make a judgement on these matters than we are,so I'll TRUST them to get on with it....UTT Thanks for your viewpoint but can I just point out that the Club itself, including Ken Davy, accepted that using the £50K to generate 10 times its value with a Landfill Tax grant was the best possible retun on the money. |
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Dec 20, 2007 18:12:43 GMT 1
But what are you going to ballot on, Stan? We need to know the current situation - and we sill don't know the details. Until FFA came to the fore the club had broke off all contact with the Trust. As the richest of the independent supporters groups the Trust can still be a fly in the ointment if it chose to be so but decided to become passive in dealing with the club. When it came time to put your head above the parapet after the first FFA leaflet you chose to stay under cover. A lot have things have changed since the original ballot. We now know that there is a lack of transparency from the club in terms of finances, we now know the land is being leased and not bought, we now know the facilities are going to be used by both the Giants and HTFC. So much has changed since the original ballot yet you still procrastinate. In an earlier post you bang on about balloting the membership and democracy. Where was the ballot when you had other ideas for that money earlier this year? Who mandated you to offer that money to someone for a totally unrelated use other than the Storthes Hall project? I'm sorry Bob but it is high time there was a total re-think in the way that the Trust, and all being well a new unified supporters group, operates and communicates with the wider body of fans. The en masse resignation of the officers of both the ST and SC is necessary to bring in new blood and a debate amongst the wider fanbase as to how a new group goes forward and how the assets of that new group are to be used. |
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 18:41:28 GMT 1
To take your last point first, Stan.
I'm happy to follow the pattern set at Barnsley if/when it comes time to amalgamate, i.e., there was a totally fresh start once the existing committees had worked out the details of the merger.
It's ironic, though, that you call for fresh blood when both the SC and the Trust have been crying out for new bodies to come forward on to the committees.
To take now your points re Storthes Hall. It's always been planned as a joint resource for Town and the Giants - nothing new there at all. The only thing that's different - that we know about - is the lease rather than the sale. How does this affect the plans for developing the old cricket pavilion into offices and changing rooms etc, which has always been the project for use of the £50K? We don't know.
And when has the £50K ever been offered for anything else??
As for being passive - I wish you'd tell that to some of the Club officials who regularly give me a hard time at DA Committee meetings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Dec 20, 2007 20:04:59 GMT 1
Coul you please tell me how this 2% of the shares would have been paid for?
From: robertepepper@ntlworld.com
To: Subject: A Way Forward?
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:33:19 +0100
Good Morning, Adam,
A suggestion was made on DATM last night that might have some merit, namely, that a Supporters group (such as the Trust) could hold a balance, perhaps as small as 2%, of shares in the Club with yourself and Ken Davy each having 49%.
I realise that this technically puts the group in a powerful position but, equally, it will simply be a way of endorsing decisions for the good of the Club, because that is the supporters' only motive.
I can't imagine that KD would agree to this for a moment but it might be a good way of putting him on the back foot?
I would welcome your thoughts - or even to know that you, too, would reject it out of hand.
Regards
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by mids on Dec 20, 2007 21:06:32 GMT 1
Could you please tell me how this 2% of the shares would have been paid for? A raffle? A fundraising event? Maybe dear old Will Venters has finally laid his hands on the match footage he lost of the fundraising game? Nah I doubt it too........there must be another explanation....... |
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 21:13:57 GMT 1
We have talked before about a share-raising scheme, which is a route many Trusts have followed.
So it would have simply been new money. Of course the idea might have fallen completely flat but I very much doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Dec 20, 2007 21:47:26 GMT 1
It would have had to have been new money because you'd spent the £50,000 getting A.P's e-mail address.  |
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Dec 20, 2007 22:21:48 GMT 1
We have talked before about a share-raising scheme, which is a route many Trusts have followed. So it would have simply been new money. Of course the idea might have fallen completely flat but I very much doubt it. But in another e-mail you told AP about the £50k that the Trust were sitting on - you never mentioned a share raising scheme to him. In fact I can't remember the last time such a scheme has been mentioned as a potential fund raiser for the Trust. It looks like the £50k is a nice way for you to use for so callled democratic accountability when it suits you yet as a potential bargaining tool in a different situation. Just like when the first FFA leaflet was beig produced, the Trust was fully involved in preparing that yet you told the membership at the AGM it wasn't. You are trying to burn the candle at both ends at the same time, well now the flames are getting to the middle. I hope you're wearing asbestos gloves Bob. |
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 20, 2007 23:12:06 GMT 1
You've talked about changing situations re Storthes Hall etc. and I think very few people would not agree that a new Club owner would define a new situation, where new decisions had to be made.
I thought that it was only right that AP should be aware of any significant funding that might be relevant.
My conscience is clear, Stan, whether we're talking about the Trust reserve fund or providing information to FFA in the preparation of its leaflet.
|
|
deo1
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,871
|
Post by deo1 on Dec 21, 2007 2:08:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Dec 21, 2007 4:13:17 GMT 1
You've talked about changing situations re Storthes Hall etc. and I think very few people would not agree that a new Club owner would define a new situation, where new decisions had to be made. I thought that it was only right that AP should be aware of any significant funding that might be relevant. My conscience is clear, Stan, whether we're talking about the Trust reserve fund or providing information to FFA in the preparation of its leaflet. So why would a change of ownership mean a re-think on the £50k reserve? At the end of the day the Academy need improved facilities, those facilities still need funding. Why is it ok to offer Adam Pearson the £50k reserve for a place on the board without balloting anyone but not ok to ballot the membership now after 3 years procrastination on behalf of the club re Storthes Hall? |
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 21, 2007 9:49:39 GMT 1
Why is it ok to offer Adam Pearson the £50k reserve for a place on the board without balloting anyone Come off it, Stan! Talk about putting words into people's mouths! I never said that or even implied it. There was no connection between informing AP of the £50K Reserve and the suggestion that the Trust as a supporters group might hold a balance of power (as a means of ovecoming the apparent impasse ). |
|
|
|
Post by Polish Hippy on Dec 21, 2007 12:42:10 GMT 1
Why is it ok to offer Adam Pearson the £50k reserve for a place on the board without balloting anyone Come off it, Stan! Talk about putting words into people's mouths! I never said that or even implied it. There was no connection between informing AP of the £50K Reserve and the suggestion that the Trust as a supporters group might hold a balance of power (as a means of ovecoming the apparent impasse ). And the only way to hold the balance of power would be for the Trust to have a place on the board or would you envisage that any board room impasse would have been resolved by a quick phone call to a Trust representative? |
|
LePoivre
Tom Cowan Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 789
|
Post by LePoivre on Dec 21, 2007 12:49:16 GMT 1
No, of course, if the Trust were ever to obtain Board representation - on behalf of ALL supporters - then there would be an open election to appoint a Director.
But for you to link a suggested share-holding with use of the £50K is nothing short of scurrilous mischief.
|
|
|
|
Post by mids on Dec 21, 2007 14:01:05 GMT 1
lets face it for one reason or another the ST and FFA have burnt the bridges they built with town and davy.... imo ffa had a good relationship with davy and were making in roads into being part of the club... what went wrong... as the saying goes don't put all your eggs into 1 basket and thats exactly what ffa did when they backed the pearson bid... We thought that Adam Pearson's bid had the potential to let Town fight its own weight, and so we chose to back him. Unfortunately KD wouldn't/couldn't sell at the time and as such, in hindsight, it appears FFA has burnt its' bridges. However, there is a meeting pencilled in for January. Time will tell if FFA gets invited or not. Hopefully we will. I'm pretty sure that KD realises he needs us on board and included, rather than looking in from the outside! |
|
|
|
Post by mids on Dec 21, 2007 14:08:00 GMT 1
But for you to link a suggested share-holding with use of the £50K is nothing short of scurrilous mischief. It does read like that though Bob, in fairness. I take on board that it probably wasn't intended to but it could be interpretted as being the suggestion. However, seeing as AP was offered a 40% shareholding for an investment of £3.2m (£1.7m to cover costs & £1.5m future investment) the 'spare' 2% would have been valued at £160k. Maybe the £50k could be put on a horse? Kauto Star at Haydock Park on Boxing Day is a certainty |
|
deo1
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,871
|
Post by deo1 on Dec 21, 2007 14:23:01 GMT 1
lets face it for one reason or another the ST and FFA have burnt the bridges they built with town and davy.... imo ffa had a good relationship with davy and were making in roads into being part of the club... what went wrong... as the saying goes don't put all your eggs into 1 basket and thats exactly what ffa did when they backed the pearson bid... We thought that Adam Pearson's bid had the potential to let Town fight its own weight, and so we chose to back him. Unfortunately KD wouldn't/couldn't sell at the time and as such, in hindsight, it appears FFA has burnt its' bridges. However, there is a meeting pencilled in for January. Time will tell if FFA gets invited or not. Hopefully we will. I'm pretty sure that KD realises he needs us on board and included, rather than looking in from the outside! Hope your right mids because you were doing pretty well with davy... i've got my fingers crossed for FFA... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 14:43:21 GMT 1
We have to be careful with posts like this. As an 'outsider', I have been a member of the SC, Patrons and am now in the ST as a life member and the ST lottery. If I could finds a group that represented supporters without thinking it was fighting the club I would quite happily give that group money to act democratically and help fund loan signings, get a place on the board, share funding for projects or whatever. Lets not fight before we even have a firm proposal for one group or supporters could quickly be alienated.
|
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Dec 21, 2007 19:23:31 GMT 1
This is what frustrates the hell out of me.
Pre FFA's meeting with Davy we had three members of the Supporters Trust committee and three ex members of the same as 'main' players in FFA.
50+ e-mails a week from them and meetings week in week out.
Then came the meeting with Davy.
Davy spoke of his displeasure with the S.T and said he couldn't trust them.
After that 1st meeting FFA had a meeting with the S.T and representatives of all the groups and it was there and then (around 18 month's ago) that the one supporters group idea arose.
I said in that meeting that it would probably be the same people and the same faces but it would be a good opportunity to get input into the club and also rebrand the supporters groups and bring the supporters back onboard.
Everyone seemed to agree and have done on several occasions since.
But alas the e-mails dried up. Communication within the supporters groups became has bad as that with Ken Davy and it seemed to me that certain people were not so eager as they appeared about changing things, even though the S.T and S.C were struggling for volunteers and subsequently losing supporter confidence.
It did pick up a bit when A.P became involved. The e-mails started flooding again and i was taking calls from all and sundry.
It's a shame really but as ex committee members of the Supporters trust will probably testify there's hardly any meat on the bone in the present supporters groups as they stand and the best description of them was " a mayonnaise of non-action"
|
|
|
|
Post by slemish on Dec 22, 2007 11:15:40 GMT 1
But for you to link a suggested share-holding with use of the £50K is nothing short of scurrilous mischief. It does read like that though Bob, in fairness. I take on board that it probably wasn't intended to but it could be interpretted as being the suggestion. However, seeing as AP was offered a 40% shareholding for an investment of £3.2m (£1.7m to cover costs & £1.5m future investment) the 'spare' 2% would have been valued at £160k. Maybe the £50k could be put on a horse? Kauto Star at Haydock Park on Boxing Day is a certainty |
|
;D 
