Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:29 pm  

HC, the confidential info to which I referred earlier was relating to a prospective share issue to potential investors by the Khan regime, one of which might have been the supporters through a properly constituted vehicle.

When OK said he was looking at "making shares available" for supporters, he was actually telling the truth. However, it was well after his initial announcement about that, that he approached the BB board with a view to BB being the vehicle for the investment. Although it was never explicitly stated, I think they may have come to realise that selling shares to hordes of individual supporters is impracticable, and fraught with legal issues. Which is why nobody ever does it that way. Hence, belatedly, talking to BB.

Since it would be the board of the supporters' trust soliciting funds from supporters to buy shares in the club, to be owned by the supporters' trust, this required due dilligence, legal input and the like (no cost to the Trust, since what we did we did ourselves). As with any such situation, that requires access to forecasts and financials and other documentation, which would never be in the public domain. Because the BB board would have been taking on legal responsibilities (and worse).

In the event, from the initial and quite limited due dilligence we did, it proved unlikely we would have been able to justify and put any realistic proposition to supporters. And events then overtook it anyway, with the sudden change of ownership.

Nevertheless, in ANY situation where a sizeable group of people organise together to represent themselves collectively, they will always have to appoint representatives to liaise with/deal with/negotiate with/whatever other parties on their behalf. Be it supporters and a supporters' trust or ISA; employees and a trade union; professionals and a professional body; members and a co-operative or mutual organisation (which a supporters' trust is); voters and councillors or MPs; or a raft of other similar scenarios. And, in each case, it is an inevitable fact of life that those elected representatives will gain access to information that cannot be shared more widely, if they are to be effective in carrying out the responsibilities placed upon them.

Ultimately, it is how those elected representatives conduct themselves when in that position, and how they engage with those whose interests they are representing, that drives whether it works or not. But people cannot have it both ways. Just as the elected members have a duty to act responsibly and in good faith, and to communicate in the ways and to the extent most appropriate, so those who elect them have a responsibility too. To recognise that their elected representatives need to be allowed to perform their duties. Without them forever wanting to know - and decide on - every last thing that they have entrusted their representatives with doing. And, in editing this before psoting, I see FA has made pretty well this point - and more effectively.

Now its quite simple with a supporters' trust, where it is one member one vote. If you are not happy with who is setting out to represent you, sack them and appoint someone you ARE happy with. The process is easy, and governed by the "Society Rules" - a formal legal document, on public record and having to be approved by what is now the Financial Conduct Authority.

Provided, of course, you can find enough such people. Because for many it becomes a thankless task. As you allude to, potentially a lot of work for little back. At the last BB AGM, it was maybe relevant that virtually no new such people presented themselves. Its one thing to say "someone should do something about X". Somewhat harder to find enough people who are actually prepared to do something about it? So, to make it work, there always has to be a balance struck, doesn't there?

As for Sam's point, with which I have very considerable sympathy indeed - I guess its chicken and egg situation, as in the past. Unfortunately, the only way to truly find out is to engage with them, and so judge them by their deeds. And yes, that indeed risks putting in a load of time, only to be let down and probably get caught in the ensuing flak too. Been there, done that, got the scars (as I know Sam and others have too). But I guess the alternative is to trust no-one and do nothing.

Incidentally, anything I say on here is said in a personal capacity, unless I ever say otherwise. And, to be crystal clear, I will be absolutely delighted to be able to make to make way on the BB board for anyone the members deem more suitable.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:44 pm  

Thanks for the reply Adey.

Just to say, I completely agree with everything you've said. I wasn't trying to suggest anything untoward by anyone, and was merely trying to highlight the fickle nature of a lot of people (as is really backed up by your own and FA's comments) that they want to know everything and feel slighted when they don't get all the info. As you say, members vote in a board for a reason. That board must have an element of trust, and if you don't like trusting someone on there, get off your backside and get in there yourself, or if you haven't got time, make sure your vote counts to get someone you do trust.

I'm rambling now, but in summary, I completely agree with what you're saying. I hope we don't have the fickle crew slating anyone who volunteers their time for something like a supporters trust. I used to work with someone who was on the Trust board, so I maybe understand some of the board members' frustrations more than the average member. I hope what you have said there (much more eloquently than I could) appeases some of those who could start to feel that way.

Good luck in getting some people to stand up and be part of the board. I hope to soon hear that there is a mix of old and new people making it up, and I look forward to current and ex members (as well as prospective new ones) being contacted to start up their memberships again.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:31 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

...I hope we don't have the fickle crew slating anyone who volunteers their time for something like a supporters trust. ...

A vain hope. Thankfully this further fact of life doesn't completely put off a lot of good people, but anyone who has ever given up loads of their free time on even something as basic as a club committee will understand only too well that (a0 EVERY member could do it FAR better than you (b) you're doing it ALL wrong (c) you no longer can complain at the most ignorant abuse as if you didn't want the stick then you shouldn't have joined the feckin committee, you silly cnu.t. Oh and they all know you're makin plenty out of it anyway.

The common factor amongst all your detractors will always be that they would laugh at the suggestion that they themselves might lift a finger to actually help, why should they, they're a member, they paid their £10 or whatever and that gives them a "right" to say what the feck they want.

There are thousands of people just like this and it just comes with that type of job. There is (probably) a majority who do appreciate some or all of what you do, but you will rarely if ever hear from them.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:38 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

A vain hope. Thankfully this further fact of life doesn't completely put off a lot of good people, but anyone who has ever given up loads of their free time on even something as basic as a club committee will understand only too well that (a0 EVERY member could do it FAR better than you (b) you're doing it ALL wrong (c) you no longer can complain at the most ignorant abuse as if you didn't want the stick then you shouldn't have joined the feckin committee, you silly spiffing chap.

The common factor amongst all your detractors will always be that they would laugh at the suggestion that they themselves might lift a finger to actually help, why should they, they're a member, they paid their £10 or whatever and that gives them a "right" to say what the feck they want.

There are thousands of people just like this and it just comes with that type of job. There is (probably) a majority who do appreciate some or all of what you do, but you will rarely if ever hear from them.

Unfortunately, I feel you have hit the nail very squarely on the head there. In my experience of these things, that's exactly what it's like.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:38 pm  

If there weren't a few people with thick skins then no-one would represent the silent majority against the virulent minority.
However as someone who went along to last year's meeting one thing that came across strongly was that OK wasn't really interested in BB unless it offered to raise and hand over some big money, clearly some distance away from it's set up and objectives, so I suspect this attitude probably put some potential new blood off. It seems the new crew are looking at Bb more positively for the excellent work it can do for the youth program, but it would seem also as a conduit for raising funding from the fans collectively.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:09 pm  

Sorry I cannot attend on Wednesday. I've been trying to rearrange a London meeting but my requests have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps the fact that the Chair is a dyed in the wool rah rah fan explains everything!
Sincerely hope it goes well and you have a constructive meeting.
PS To Adey -- I've sent a PM

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:27 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

Oh I agree. To clarify, I'm not saying that shouldn't happen. If they want a couple of fans' opinions, without it getting out to the masses, the board of a Supporters Trust that work closely with the club (but are still independant) is perfect.

All I mean is that you will get members who feel that if the board knows, they should know too. And Trusts often have a lot of problems getting members to join and get involved anyway, so the last thing you want sometimes is further reason for them to feel alienated.

I agree with this. I think Bullbuilder is a good idea and if I lived in Yorkshire I'd get involved. The passing of information to special cliques has been a disaster for the credibility of the club. It's essentially 'spinning' through rlfans and supporter networks that which the originator would not stand behind in public. Whilst those in receipt think they are privileged, what is actually happening is they are being used.

If it's OK to tell one Bulls fan, it's OK to go in the T and A.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:04 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

I agree with this. I think Bullbuilder is a good idea and if I lived in Yorkshire I'd get involved. The passing of information to special cliques has been a disaster for the credibility of the club. It's essentially 'spinning' through rlfans and supporter networks that which the originator would not stand behind in public. Whilst those in receipt think they are privileged, what is actually happening is they are being used.

If it's OK to tell one Bulls fan, it's OK to go in the T and A.

Thanks for the kind words about BullBuilder. Would have been good to have had you on board.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:16 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

I agree with this. I think Bullbuilder is a good idea and if I lived in Yorkshire I'd get involved. The passing of information to special cliques has been a disaster for the credibility of the club. It's essentially 'spinning' through rlfans and supporter networks that which the originator would not stand behind in public. Whilst those in receipt think they are privileged, what is actually happening is they are being used.

If it's OK to tell one Bulls fan, it's OK to go in the T and A.

I'm not sure who these previous cliques are, though I agree the PR has been a disaster. Are you saying Bullbuilder, for example, shouldn't receive any priviliged information - such as potential transfers or sponsorships -if the club were not preapred to declare that to the world? If so, I disagree.

Re: Supporters Trust - Bullbuilder : Tue Jan 28, 2014 1:15 pm  

tigertot wrote:

I'm not sure who these previous cliques are, though I agree the PR has been a disaster. Are you saying Bullbuilder, for example, shouldn't receive any priviliged information - such as potential transfers or sponsorships -if the club were not preapred to declare that to the world? If so, I disagree.

That's exactly what I'm saying although the earlier posters were not talking about transfer speculation.