Mtm Entrance Discussion

[Armand2]

Calling someone "bloody pedantic" - on the way to being abusive.

 

Jesus.

[Allan Heron]

Who is going to blink first?

[hebridean jag]

An important topic has now been hijacked for 5 pages by a chancer trying to show off his anti-trust credentials, but it`s all right, it`s a principalled thing.

 

This donation nonsense, that`s what it is, falls completely if one person paid £10.00 at the door last night. You can`t have two prices for one event. I`m still struggling with the concept of anyone turning up at an event knowing full price the terms and condition of entry then complaining because the organisers were`nt willing to haggle.

 

Anyway, for those of us JT members who could`nt make it last night because of geography, could we have a more detailed anylasis of what exactly unfolded and what the manager actualy said.

[Norman]

Who is going to blink first?

I'm quite happy to back down.

 

I thought it was a good analogy, Armand2 thought otherwise.

[potty trained]

An important topic has now been hijacked for 5 pages by a chancer trying to show off his anti-trust credentials, but it`s all right, it`s a principalled thing.

 

This donation nonsense, that`s what it is, falls completely if one person paid £10.00 at the door last night. You can`t have two prices for one event. I`m still struggling with the concept of anyone turning up at an event knowing full price the terms and condition of entry then complaining because the organisers were`nt willing to haggle.

 

Anyway, for those of us JT members who could`nt make it last night because of geography, could we have a more detailed anylasis of what exactly unfolded and what the manager actualy said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any way, back on topic.

 

I've had a long hard think and believe that Armand 2 is totally correct on this matter. Anyone who says other wise is just an abusive pedant.

Edited February 4, 2011 by potty trained

[B.C.G. JAG]

My son wants the free toy that comes with a packet of corn flakes, but neither of us like corn flakes. Should we offer a reduced price for the pack as we only want the free item?

 

Anyway, as regards the Trust, I did try and collect names to force an EGM. This was because I felt that since the majority of the Board had left (as a side point, it still confuses me how the majority felt they could not influence the Trust when the numbers were on their side), and the remainder hadn't had the validity of their positions tested by a ballot, it seemed to me that the Trust Board had no popular mandate to represent the membership. I wanted elections to be brought forward to change that.

 

When I canvassed for names to force an EGM, I fell short by about 50% of the required total - suffice to say that there is no popular support to force an EGM. There are a lot of critical voices on this forum, but loud as they are, they don't carry much support in the real world.

 

As Allan Heron points out, when people don't put themselves forward for elections then it's pointless to complain when the same old faces do put themselves forward and get themselves re-elected. If you want change, you can't expect someone else to do it for you. So, I have (perhaps foolishly) joined the Trust because I want to try and mould it into something more democratic and representative. I don't believe I have any mandate to do that or to represent anyone, but the process has to begin somewhere.

 

The Trust is setting up a sub group to discuss ideas for change. There will be an invitation going out soon for others to join that group if they are interested in it. I also hope that anyone with ideas shares them with me. I hope we can put together a number of different initiatives that make the Trust more palatable to people.

 

Things I'd personally like to see:

 

That the Trust Board be made up of representatives from different fan's organisations: A member from each of the buses / someone from this forum or THW's / a nomad (although how that would work I'm not sure). This could be one way of stopping a particular section of the support gaining disproportionate influence over the Trust. There should be mechanism's for recall as well if sub organisations wanted to do so.

 

That the Board is never automatically assumed without a vote. Even if there are vacancies, the Board must face a vote of approval from a quorum of their peers.

 

That anyone elected can only stand for two years maximum, after which they cannot stand again for any Trust position for another two years.

 

Just some thoughts. Hopefully other people have others. However, these things won't happen whilst people stand outside. I'm only going to be involved until the start of August when personal circumstances dictate I will no longer be able to contribute. I hope others come forward before then and help try and build something we can all be proud of.

 

I now hand over to the usual cynics to make the mandatory 'deid duck' comments.

 

Quack.

[northernsoul]

How about the Trust organises another open meeting to discuss it's current position, explain themselves on the resignations of stolenscone, Honved and WJ, the recent AGM where Jim Alexander was voted off the Board and crucially what it will do in the future to attract lapsed members and new members to join.

 

This time a meeting where one or two members don't dominate the meeting accusing the PTFC BoD of sexism over not allowing the Trust a seat on the board.

 

Open to all fans, Trust and non Trust members.

Edited February 4, 2011 by northernsoul

[lennythistle]

and just when I think The Jags Trust deserve some credit for their ethical principled stand on Proxy-gate, they manage to clutch contempt from the jaws of respect with this statement straight from The Allan Cowan School of Diplomacy.

jaf.

 

Don't blame the Jags Trust for my statement. I'd also like to highlight that I have already , more than once I might add, apologised for it .

[hebridean jag]

jaf.

 

Don't blame the Jags Trust for my statement. I'd also like to highlight that I have already , more than once I might add, apologised for it .

It`s the JT now..............so there`s nothing else to add about what the manager actualy said?

[The Cuddly Toi]

Personally, I tried to get into the meeting by handing over three empty lemonade bottles, but was refused entry.

 

This totally scunnered me, as there's nowhere that says you couln't get in by handing over three empty lemonade bottles

[Guest mod4]

I've split this from the main thread. Play nice.

[The Devil's Point]

However, there's so much nonsense talked about the Trust as if it's some kind of closed shop. There's been no contested positions because people aren't putting their names forward. If people don't put their name forward, then the same people will continue to be there until such times as they are able. The logic is breathtakingly simple.

 

If you don't want to put your name forward but still want to reserve the right to whinge on here then at least accept the fact that all you are doing is pissing in the wind. Don't mistake it for doing something.

 

Hear, hear

 

The endless stream of negative comments on the forum must put a lot of potential activists off having anything to do with the Trust. Trying to run the Trust looks like a nightmare to me and its a shame people can't give a bit of credit to the efforts put in by people on a voluntary basis. I for one am happy to back the Trust and feel quite guilty for not helping out beyond paying a membership fee. I don't see how folk can moan that much unless they are actually putting some time and effort into doing something constructive themselves.

[stolenscone]

Jeez, is this all there is to get worked up about?

 

It was pretty clearly advertised as an event for members. You can join on the night. You went along. You're not a member. You don't want to join. You don't get in. You go for a curry instead. Have I missed anything?

 

You might want to debate whether it would have been nice to open it up to non-members - that's another matter - but nothing I read suggested it was mis-advertised.

 

Meanwhile, I'm voting for this as the "biggest storm in a teacup" thread of the year so far, but it's still early days.

[sandy]

Anyway, as regards the Trust, I did try and collect names to force an EGM. This was because I felt that since the majority of the Board had left (as a side point, it still confuses me how the majority felt they could not influence the Trust when the numbers were on their side), and the remainder hadn't had the validity of their positions tested by a ballot, it seemed to me that the Trust Board had no popular mandate to represent the membership. I wanted elections to be brought forward to change that.

 

When I canvassed for names to force an EGM, I fell short by about 50% of the required total - suffice to say that there is no popular support to force an EGM. There are a lot of critical voices on this forum, but loud as they are, they don't carry much support in the real world.

 

As Allan Heron points out, when people don't put themselves forward for elections then it's pointless to complain when the same old faces do put themselves forward and get themselves re-elected. If you want change, you can't expect someone else to do it for you. So, I have (perhaps foolishly) joined the Trust because I want to try and mould it into something more democratic and representative. I don't believe I have any mandate to do that or to represent anyone, but the process has to begin somewhere.

 

The Trust is setting up a sub group to discuss ideas for change. There will be an invitation going out soon for others to join that group if they are interested in it. I also hope that anyone with ideas shares them with me. I hope we can put together a number of different initiatives that make the Trust more palatable to people.

 

BCG Jag, your efforts are laudable and I wish you well. You might usefully reflect on the fact that a number of good people have tried to change the Trust in recent years. Most of them resigned from the JTB eventually. There was, and remains, at least one common factor - you must not underestimate the strength of the resistance you may encounter.

[jaggybunnet]

Jeez, is this all there is to get worked up about?

 

It was pretty clearly advertised as an event for members. You can join on the night. You went along. You're not a member. You don't want to join. You don't get in. You go for a curry instead. Have I missed anything?

 

You might want to debate whether it would have been nice to open it up to non-members - that's another matter - but nothing I read suggested it was mis-advertised.

 

Meanwhile, I'm voting for this as the "biggest storm in a teacup" thread of the year so far, but it's still early days.

 

 

can I vote for this to be the most sensible post yet :thumbsup2

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Meanwhile, I'm voting for this as the "biggest storm in a teacup" thread of the year so far, but it's still early days.

Don't be despondent. As you say yourself it's early days yet.

 

To be fair tho' things were bound to boil over. In hindsight, given what occurred a day or so before the night, it may have been better to have canceled or at least postponed the event. Feelings were naturally running high so a cooling off period would not have been out of place. That's about a week now and still zilch from the Trust. Let's get this ******* apostrophe business settled once and for all!!!!!

[Milo]

Jeez, is this all there is to get worked up about?

 

It was pretty clearly advertised as an event for members. You can join on the night. You went along. You're not a member. You don't want to join. You don't get in. You go for a curry instead. Have I missed anything?

 

You might want to debate whether it would have been nice to open it up to non-members - that's another matter - but nothing I read suggested it was mis-advertised.

 

Meanwhile, I'm voting for this as the "biggest storm in a teacup" thread of the year so far, but it's still early days.

 

Stolescone, you are the lone voice of reason on this thread.

Honestly, I can't believe I've wasted precious minutes of my shortening life wading through the preceding five pages of total dross.

Please look out for my new, even more controversial topic, "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin"; where I exclusively reveal a secret conspiracy of evil elitists from their HQ in Maryhill........the world must know!

[sandy]

Don't be despondent. As you say yourself it's early days yet.

 

To be fair tho' things were bound to boil over. In hindsight, given what occurred a day or so before the night, it may have been better to have canceled or at least postponed the event. Feelings were naturally running high so a cooling off period would not have been out of place. That's about a week now and still zilch from the Trust. Let's get this ******* apostrophe business settled once and for all!!!!!

 

I too am eagerly awaiting the promised JT statement, once they can agree what they are prepared to say. Let's hope it's out today!

[beep0608]

You'll know this from personal experience, of course

 

I'm concerned at how many other people like me might be mentally switching off. It's People's Front Of Judea time again. Fuxake.

 

Whatever I think of the Jags Trust it's the only supporters group we have, and we should only have one. I don't think anybody is being paid to do it. They have day jobs like the rest of us.

 

I thought we were supposed to be on the same side. I don't want a splintered support but that's the way this is going. We have much bigger battles that we should be concentrating on.

Edited February 6, 2011 by beep0608

[Fawlty Towers]

I'm concerned at how many other people like me might be mentally switching off. It's People's Front Of Judea time again. Fuxake.

 

Whatever I think of the Jags Trust it's the only supporters group we have, and we should only have one. I don't think anybody is being paid to do it. They have day jobs like the rest of us.

 

I thought we were supposed to be on the same side. I don't want a splintered support but that's the way this is going. We have much bigger battles that we should be concentrating on.

 

[sandy]

 

I thought we were supposed to be on the same side. I don't want a splintered support but that's the way this is going. We have much bigger battles that we should be concentrating on.

 

Oh yes, bigger battles lie ahead. But to fight them we need an effective, strong Trust with no baggage, no hidden agendas and no cabals. A clean, refreshed JTB would be essential if we are to have a say in the future of the Club we love. So think of it as short term pain for longer term gain?

 

The Club, Trust and supporters relationships are currently broken and dysfunctional. If it requires a purge in the JTB and/or Club Board to break through the impasse, then it will have been worth it me thinks.