Meeting Thurs 23rd with Trust, SISA, Saveoursaints, 2 MPs, LM and MC

[StuRomseySaint]

You just have to look at how the Saints Trust has been run from day one, and how the Ted Bates statue fiasco panned out, to see what a disaster it would be if the super fan clique were allowed anywhere near the club.

 

And how TSA was left to rot and paid up members not represented, when the 'board' of the TSA jumped ship as soon as something else which might get them closer to the club, came up.

 

Anyway, I am off to the pub now. Have a wonderful night! xx

[MarkSFC]

I couldn't agree more with all the "no fans-owned club at any cost" brigade. I have hoped for a takeover by a wealthy investor for 3 or 4 years but the truth of the matter is, they have not managed to do so. Thats probably due to a mixture of the complexity of share-ownership, Lowe and his cronies, and the seemingly continuous change of board.

I still have the belief that a new owner will appear and I think it will now happen quite quickly.

 

Originally, and Im sure some of you will put this down, the idea of the SOSFour was to raise funds to purchase enough shares to initiate "change" on the board. I.E. get Lowe and Cowan out. Administration changed this.

 

As we already had the basis of a plan, we took the decision to amend our plan and be a possible solution, IF no buyer emerged. Our plan would not and never did include having "the lunatics running the asylum" to quote someone on here. It would be democratic but with very strict conditions of appointment and suitability to carry out the job. Believe it or not, some "fans" are very capable of serving on the board of a football club. Its probably not a great comparison, and apart from Hone and Hoos (no comment there) who else, who has ever served on the board had run a football club prior to their appointment. Excluding Leon who I believe was involved with Lymington, I suspect theres one or two Ive not realised, but you get my drift!

 

IF, and this is a MASSIVE IF, the real only option is "some sort of fans owned club" I am not totally oppossed to it. BUT, as someone who may be in a position to initiate such an initiative, I would NEVER work with or back ANY of the SISA group. In my humble opinion, and in spite of their voice, they only have one reason for wanting a fans based club...their own egos. They would in my opinion, effectively be the ones who put the final nail in the coffin if it ever got to that point. They wont though.

 

As for Saints Trust, I think they are somewhere in betweeen a rock and a hard place. Whatever they do NOW, will split opinion. What they do seem to have in their favour is a legal identity, bank account already functioning, and association with FansDirect, that should such an initiative occur, would add much weight and advice. This is not to say that FansDirect would not support any one else though, I dont know.

 

My overall opinion on the situation is simple. Everyone who cares about Southampton Football Club should do all they can, financially and personally, NOW.

 

And then when the dust settles after what will hopefully be an exciting takeover, the state of Supporters groups should be reviewed.

 

At the risk of ridicule and abuse, I would like to see Saints Trust publically disown SISA. I would then like the Saints Trust to disband. As the original Trust was (or at least was advertised as) just for SLH shareholders, it effectively has no real purpose now. This does not mean that certain individuals who have been involved have nothing to add in the future, I just think that a completely fresh start is required.

 

I would like to see the new owners adopt a new structure for fans. This could involve a standard constitution for all groups (with "local rules" so to speak, for groups like London Saints, Northern Saints etc, who by geography, will probably have other aspects to discuss) which were then each represented on a Saints Fans Board. This board would then facilitate ideas and discussions and subject to the new owners acceptance feed their concerns and thoughts upwardly.

The connection between the new owner(s) and the fans should be created quickly.

 

All groups would need to have a minimum membership to exist. Well these are ideas, that clearly can be debated!!

 

I hope this clearly states mine, and SOS's position in regard to Fans Takeover bids. My comments regarding SISA and the trust are wholly mine.

 

So, I hope all damnation of FansOwnership can be put to bed, and eveyone can focus on the next few days which could either be spectacular or disastrous.

 

I believe in the spectacular......

[Kingsland Red]

Having read all the above comments, the simple economics are that a wealthy businessman / men would, we assume, be able to fund / run a business with say a £15m plus turnover at St Marys.

A fans group at best would turn over say £2m which would be like an Aldershot and therefore St Marys would be way too grand and Eastleigh would become our local rivals.

[Tomobz]

Stu cracks me up, he constantly goes on about certain people being attention seekers in the running of the club but he is the biggest attention seeking member on the forum.

[StuRomseySaint]

Stu cracks me up, he constantly goes on about certain people being attention seekers in the running of the club but he is the biggest attention seeking member on the forum.

 

Rather than throw your toys out, hows about shutting me up by showing me up and giving me some examples of how Saints Trust represented their members in the last year?

 

Right, definately off to the pub now.

[Tomobz]

Lol, I love how you think I am defending the trust. I don't want any sort of argument about the trust or anything really, I just find you amusing because your a walking contradiction, thats all

[hypochondriac]

I am just struggling with the negativity. I fully appreciate healthy scepticism, because i have also been concerned that fans, although very willing and dedicated, can let their hearts rule their heads when it comes to serious management decisions, and that can spell disaster. I have also in the past been somewhat cynical of the Trust because it was teh same old same old names involved and when teh same folk always put themselves forward, its easy to fall into the trap thats its just for selfish reasons, that tehir motivation is egotistical rather than altruistic.

 

So what made me change my mind? Quite simply I got the chance to meet NI and SG. Cant say I would agree with everything they do, but I realised that if ego was involved it was minimal. The only reason we see teh sam names reappear is because no one else is prepared to get involved - When they do, they get the crap..unjustly.. and so I make no apologies for supporting these ideals - as idealistic as they may be, as difficult and improbable as it amy seem, but small acorns ARE needed for mighty Oaks, and they do need fertiles soil to florish... lets just say its worth watering these saplings to see which have the strength and support to grow. Cynicism and scepticism are healthy - ask the questions and keep these groups honest and accountable - but do it in a constructive way, encourage them to think about all teh consequences and get help where its needed.

 

I would like nothing more than a new owner with experience and money who has teh clubs best interests at heart, but the reality is that the administrator will be looking for the best deal for creditors, not for fans and we may end up with someone less able or less experienced but with jsut enough money to take control, yet no real passion for Saints, just driven by ego...I hope not, but the fans groups at least have the club at heart of all they do.

 

Stu and the rest, i do understand and appreciate your concerns, they are natural and it is important to not blindly support.....something some of us said about Wilde when he first showed up.... but its also important to be open minded to new ideas.

 

My concerns have nothing to do with NI and I doubt he does have much of an ego. I am just using his running of the Trust as an example of how he would run the club should have ever get a chance to influence that. I don't agree with his decisions re the Trust at all so it's likely that I would disagree with his running of the club.

[Weston Saint]

I don't want to get into it in detail because it's boring but basically I oppose many of the decisions and how the Trust is run. It follows that if the organisation is run like that then the club would be too. There are examples of deception and pretending to be a democratic organisation when it is anything but. It worries me that if the people involved with the Trust now decided to star up the new SFC we would see the same mistakes being made. That's why I oppose fan ownership, it's all about getting the right people on board.

Forget the people. The Trust registered as an Industrial and Provident Society with the Registrar of Friendly Societies. As such all its actions and conduct will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1965 - 1978.

 

This will be the vehicle, should it be necessary. The likelyhood is that new democratic elections would be held and many new faces put forward to revive the credability, communication and proactivity of the Trust.

 

But let us hope it is not necessary

[Frank's cousin]

My concerns have nothing to do with NI and I doubt he does have much of an ego. I am just using his running of the Trust as an example of how he would run the club should have ever get a chance to influence that. I don't agree with his decisions re the Trust at all so it's likely that I would disagree with his running of the club.

 

Could NIck run it any worse than Lowe, Wilde or Crouch? ;-)

[hypochondriac]

Lol, I love how you think I am defending the trust. I don't want any sort of argument about the trust or anything really, I just find you amusing because your a walking contradiction, thats all

 

Big difference between attention seeking on here and your internet persona and then the Saints Trust and what they do.

[hypochondriac]

Could NIck run it any worse than Lowe' date=' Wilde or Crouch? ;-)[/quote']

 

Probably not but I have high standards now we have a chance to start again!

[hypochondriac]

Forget the people. The Trust registered as an Industrial and Provident Society with the Registrar of Friendly Societies. As such all its actions and conduct will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1965 - 1978.

 

This will be the vehicle, should it be necessary. The likelyhood is that new democratic elections would be held and many new faces put forward to revive the credability, communication and proactivity of the Trust.

 

But let us hope it is not necessary

 

I would hope for that too. My only worry is that this would not happen and we would have the people involved with the Trust at the moment with too much influence at the top with the club. I was caught out with Wilde and now we have a chance for a clean slate. I don't want to be caught out again.

[derry]

To be fair to Derry, I admire the bloke for doing something constructive to try and raise some money, I just hope he pushes on with his own fundraising and doesn't get bullied out by the ST and SISA and doesn't get bullied into the crazy 'fan ownership' idea.

 

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I can more than look after myself and if you knew my background and reputation it's not me you would be fearing for.

 

The fan ownership sceme was killed off yesterday afternoon in my lounge. not at the meeting 4 hours later.

 

The SISA influence was sidelined at the same time.

 

Last night's meeting was an intelligence gathering exercise from the parties present, other than SISA who didn't show any visible evidence of having any.

 

The deal with the ST is that we carry on in a parallel way supporting each other on the understanding we are a last ditch rescue if all else fails. in the unlikely event of now being needed the trust is the ideal ready made vehicle to launch a rescue. At that stage there could be a combining and a revamp of the trust. We are now working together.

 

Those that didn't want a back up plan can put their hands up now.

 

I, Ron, Duncan and the saveoursaints group have worked to that criteria from the beginning. Everybody's ideal solution was an investor to buy the lot ASAP. Nobody wants a fans owned club unless there was no alternative.

 

I've said it time and time again, yet the same people are making the same comments about fan ownership. It seems to me everybody can type but nobody is reading anything as written but trying to interpret something that isn't there.

 

Nobody is trying to set up a bid for the club, for a start it would be the end of the summer for me, a logistical nightmare, and would certainly fail to get any support. The exception-a rescue facing liquidation which is looking less likely by the day thank goodness.

 

 

This is the last comment I'm going to make on where we stand.

Edited 24 April, 2009 by derry

[Weston Saint]

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I can more than look after myself and if you knew my background and reputation it's not me you would be fearing for.

 

Above is only part of Derry's post but I can vouch for what he says.

[Mole]

The deal with the ST is that we carry on in a parallel way supporting each other on the understanding we are a last ditch rescue if all else fails. in the unlikely event of now being needed the trust is the ideal ready made vehicle to launch a rescue.

 

I disagree completely. The Trust has such a bad name and reputation that involving yourself with it is shooting yourself in the foot. Supporting SOS now equates to supporting the Saints Trust and i would never do that.

 

At that stage there could be a combining and a revamp of the trust.

 

It's all very well trying to re-invent the Trust but it'll still be the same ill thought out Socialist concept.

 

We are now working together.

 

So you are now in effect The Saints Trust.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

I just told them I'd never work with them because of their anarchistic behaviour and disrespect for others, in any event I had already agreed a joint way forward with Nick Illingsworth which brought our two groups into a joint parallel mutually supporting position before this meeting took place consequently they are not needed.

 

"The fan ownership sceme was killed off yesterday afternoon in my lounge. not at the meeting 4 hours later.

 

The SISA influence was sidelined at the same time."

 

derry, I fail to understand how you were able to dismiss SISA prior to the meeting, how much information did you have about them or from what independant source was your information gathered ? due to your prejudgment of Richard Chorley et al do you think you were then welcome of their 'behaviour' to justify your earlier decision to exclude them hereafter ?

[krissyboy31]

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I can more than look after myself and if you knew my background and reputation it's not me you would be fearing for.

 

The fan ownership sceme was killed off yesterday afternoon in my lounge. not at the meeting 4 hours later.

 

The SISA influence was sidelined at the same time.

 

Last night's meeting was an intelligence gathering exercise from the parties present, other than SISA who didn't show any visible evidence of having any.

 

The deal with the ST is that we carry on in a parallel way supporting each other on the understanding we are a last ditch rescue if all else fails. in the unlikely event of now being needed the trust is the ideal ready made vehicle to launch a rescue. At that stage there could be a combining and a revamp of the trust. We are now working together.

 

Those that didn't want a back up plan can put their hands up now.

 

I, Ron, Duncan and the saveoursaints group have worked to that criteria from the beginning. Everybody's ideal solution was an investor to buy the lot ASAP. Nobody wants a fans owned club unless there was no alternative.

 

I've said it time and time again, yet the same people are making the same comments about fan ownership. It seems to me everybody can type but nobody is reading anything as written but trying to interpret something that isn't there.

 

Nobody is trying to set up a bid for the club, for a start it would be the end of the summer for me, a logistical nightmare, and would certainly fail to get any support. The exception-a rescue facing liquidation which is looking less likely by the day thank goodness.

 

 

This is the last comment I'm going to make on where we stand.

 

Cheers Derry for the summing up and all the effort you and the others have put in.

[derry]

I disagree completely. The Trust has such a bad name and reputation that involving yourself with it is shooting yourself in the foot. Supporting SOS now equates to supporting the Saints Trust and i would never do that.

 

 

 

It's all very well trying to re-invent the Trust but it'll still be the same ill thought out Socialist concept.

 

 

 

So you are now in effect The Saints Trust.

 

"The fan ownership sceme was killed off yesterday afternoon in my lounge. not at the meeting 4 hours later.

 

The SISA influence was sidelined at the same time."

 

derry, I fail to understand how you were able to dismiss SISA prior to the meeting, how much information did you have about them or from what independant source was your information gathered ? due to your prejudgment of Richard Chorley et al do you think you were then welcome of their 'behaviour' to justify your earlier decision to exclude them hereafter ?

 

The trust does not need to be as it is perceived. A powerful influx of new blood, expertise, and every contributor would be a member, literally thousands of contributors having a vote.

 

Now tell me that wouldn't change it.

 

There were only effectively three groups, once the trust and saintsweb/saveoursaints decided to get together supporting a rescue only, the fans bid was irrelevant and could not succeed.

 

The SISA group have form, it was described to me in graphic detail by a number of people. Our group would not in any circumstances countenance that behaviour.

 

The meeting just confirmed that they were incapable of a normal working relationship and confirmed their irrelevance to the two groups. I wouldn't work with them under any circumstances and to be fair them with me.

[Mole]

The trust does not need to be as it is perceived. A powerful influx of new blood, expertise, and every contributor would be a member, literally thousands of contributors having a vote.

 

Now tell me that wouldn't change it.

 

Well i've recently learned that Nick Illingsworth is counting my cancelled membership as an actual member. I don't want my ex-membership giving weight to this rotten supporters group. When i left i made it clear i didn't want to be associated with The Trust. So of the literally thousands of members they claim to have less than 50% are real members.

 

This is not acceptable in my book and only serves to illustrate that the Trust is not democratic.

[miserableoldgit]

The trust does not need to be as it is perceived. A powerful influx of new blood, expertise, and every contributor would be a member, literally thousands of contributors having a vote.

 

Now tell me that wouldn't change it.

 

There were only effectively three groups, once the trust and saintsweb/saveoursaints decided to get together supporting a rescue only, the fans bid was irrelevant and could not succeed.

 

The SISA group have form, it was described to me in graphic detail by a number of people. Our group would not in any circumstances countenance that behaviour.

 

The meeting just confirmed that they were incapable of a normal working relationship and confirmed their irrelevance to the two groups. I wouldn't work with them under any circumstances and to be fair them with me.

As a matter of interest, how many members does SISA have? I thought that it was just a small handful.

[Mole]

As a matter of interest, how many members does SISA have? I thought that it was just a small handful.

 

I don't know about SISA but the Trust claim to have 838 members on their website, but have about 400 in reality, although Nick claims it's over 1000 and those who no longer want to be members are automatically enrolled as a member for life!

 

I believe SISA operate the same system.

[trousers]

To be fair to Derry, I admire the bloke for doing something constructive

 

[SFC Forever]

Isn't it funny how we quickly set our stalls out once the bidding frenzy has started. The Trust, has by it's lack of endeavour and blatant lies, shown itself to be concerned solely with its own agenda.

Whilst I find it admirable that all groups, that are fan based, have a common goal and that is and should be the saving of our club. I find it odd that we have no say in the decision as to who and what we are to be in the future.

A title for the venture isn't so very hard to find is it?

SOUTHAMPTON FC 2009. Maybe?

The Trust has the resources at the ready for the collection of monies. This I can accept if and when they hand this facility to someone,who has earned our trust. If these groups are ever to unite the need for speed will be imperative. The people who will be organising the new collective should be telling us what the real plans are and asking for our mandate. It is no good waiting for the time to act before deciding that there is no plan.

Derry has been busy and I commend his actions to date. However I am loathe as are several others, I note, to have anything to do with the trust unless they are reined in as they will not have the weight of support that I feel we will have. The other groups I know nothing about so, as a lot on here will probably agree, Derry is our main focal point. There have been some useful imputs from professional people who use this site and again I appreciate their offers of help. However before we go to meet with other groups we have to have our plans at the ready. If the others are not close enough to ours then we simply say thanks but no thanks. If this action is going to be necessary then the means and organisation must be able to be up and running immediately.

[derry]

I don't know about SISA but the Trust claim to have 838 members on their website, but have about 400 in reality, although Nick claims it's over 1000 and those who no longer want to be members are automatically enrolled as a member for life!

 

I believe SISA operate the same system.

 

It was explained in a copy of their rules published on here yesterday. Nick explained the current situation to me.

 

The membership by law is everyone who has been a member to protect trust assets and to stop a trust letting the membership drop to zero and the committee walking off with the assets. This way all the members share the assets.

 

the trust now have a data base which contains 400 approx current members. They are not claiming 1000 members.

 

As for SISA they have no trust status therefore it is irrelevant what they do or don't do. My understanding is they have very few members.

[derry]

As a matter of interest, how many members does SISA have? I thought that it was just a small handful.

I was told 4 but I personally haven't a clue.

[Mole]

the trust now have a data base which contains 400 approx current members. They are not claiming 1000 members.

 

They claim 838 members. It's said that on their site for about 1 year. They could have changed that but chose not to. I wonder why.

[hypochondriac]

It was explained in a copy of their rules published on here yesterday. Nick explained the current situation to me.

 

The membership by law is everyone who has been a member to protect trust assets and to stop a trust letting the membership drop to zero and the committee walking off with the assets. This way all the members share the assets.

 

the trust now have a data base which contains 400 approx current members. They are not claiming 1000 members.

 

As for SISA they have no trust status therefore it is irrelevant what they do or don't do. My understanding is they have very few members.

 

Their website is still misleading though isnt it.

[derry]

They claim 838 members. It's said that on their site for about 1 year. They could have changed that but chose not to. I wonder why.

 

For goodness sake Stanley it's to comply with trust law. I doubt they have recruited many new members and would suffer natural wastage. But the law requires anybody who was ever a member to always be counted.

[derry]

Their website is still misleading though isnt it.

 

I don't know and honestly I don't care.

[hypochondriac]

I don't know and honestly I don't care.

 

Well you should care because these are the very people who could end up controlling the club! If they can mislead people about this then they can do it about other things. As I said my fingers were burnt with Wilde so no I m a lot more careful before I throw my weight behind someone.

[Mole]

For goodness sake Stanley it's to comply with trust law. I doubt they have recruited many new members and would suffer natural wastage. But the law requires anybody who was ever a member to always be counted.

 

They should make this clear on their website by displaying the real number and the number including those who want nothing to do with it. It's like voting in an election and automatically being enrolled to vote that way for life.

 

So much for the Trust being democratic and transparent.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I couldn't agree more with all the "no fans-owned club at any cost" brigade. I have hoped for a takeover by a wealthy investor for 3 or 4 years but the truth of the matter is, they have not managed to do so. Thats probably due to a mixture of the complexity of share-ownership, Lowe and his cronies, and the seemingly continuous change of board.

I still have the belief that a new owner will appear and I think it will now happen quite quickly.

 

Originally, and Im sure some of you will put this down, the idea of the SOSFour was to raise funds to purchase enough shares to initiate "change" on the board. I.E. get Lowe and Cowan out. Administration changed this.

 

As we already had the basis of a plan, we took the decision to amend our plan and be a possible solution, IF no buyer emerged. Our plan would not and never did include having "the lunatics running the asylum" to quote someone on here. It would be democratic but with very strict conditions of appointment and suitability to carry out the job. Believe it or not, some "fans" are very capable of serving on the board of a football club. Its probably not a great comparison, and apart from Hone and Hoos (no comment there) who else, who has ever served on the board had run a football club prior to their appointment. Excluding Leon who I believe was involved with Lymington, I suspect theres one or two Ive not realised, but you get my drift!

 

IF, and this is a MASSIVE IF, the real only option is "some sort of fans owned club" I am not totally oppossed to it. BUT, as someone who may be in a position to initiate such an initiative, I would NEVER work with or back ANY of the SISA group. In my humble opinion, and in spite of their voice, they only have one reason for wanting a fans based club...their own egos. They would in my opinion, effectively be the ones who put the final nail in the coffin if it ever got to that point. They wont though.

 

As for Saints Trust, I think they are somewhere in betweeen a rock and a hard place. Whatever they do NOW, will split opinion. What they do seem to have in their favour is a legal identity, bank account already functioning, and association with FansDirect, that should such an initiative occur, would add much weight and advice. This is not to say that FansDirect would not support any one else though, I dont know.

 

My overall opinion on the situation is simple. Everyone who cares about Southampton Football Club should do all they can, financially and personally, NOW.

 

And then when the dust settles after what will hopefully be an exciting takeover, the state of Supporters groups should be reviewed.

 

At the risk of ridicule and abuse, I would like to see Saints Trust publically disown SISA. I would then like the Saints Trust to disband. As the original Trust was (or at least was advertised as) just for SLH shareholders, it effectively has no real purpose now. This does not mean that certain individuals who have been involved have nothing to add in the future, I just think that a completely fresh start is required.

 

I would like to see the new owners adopt a new structure for fans. This could involve a standard constitution for all groups (with "local rules" so to speak, for groups like London Saints, Northern Saints etc, who by geography, will probably have other aspects to discuss) which were then each represented on a Saints Fans Board. This board would then facilitate ideas and discussions and subject to the new owners acceptance feed their concerns and thoughts upwardly.

The connection between the new owner(s) and the fans should be created quickly.

 

All groups would need to have a minimum membership to exist. Well these are ideas, that clearly can be debated!!

 

I hope this clearly states mine, and SOS's position in regard to Fans Takeover bids. My comments regarding SISA and the trust are wholly mine.

 

So, I hope all damnation of FansOwnership can be put to bed, and eveyone can focus on the next few days which could either be spectacular or disastrous.

 

I believe in the spectacular......

 

 

Excellent post Mark - I agree 100%.

[derry]

They should make this clear on their website by displaying the real number and the number including those who want nothing to do with it. It's like voting in an election and automatically being enrolled to vote that way for life.

 

So much for the Trust being democratic and transparent.

 

I'm not part of the trust and we only have an agreement with them to facilitate a rescue if it becomes necessary. As each day goes by, that is more unlikely.

 

It is purely a legal mechanism to protect the assets of any trust.

 

The law and trust deed dictates what they do, I understand you are bitterly opposed to the trust however I would be a fool to ignore the ability of a readymade legal trust to accelerate a rescue if it became necessary.

 

Whatever the owners, this trust should be revamped, beefed up and made attractive to join so that if this ever occurred again, the trust could be a powerful force representing a majority of the supporters and actually make a difference.

 

It would be wrong to let it stagnate, the sensible supporter should join it and help it to be what the fans actually need, a powerful and credible voice.

 

It won't be me as as soon as this crisis is over I'm out of it and back to playing golf and watching football and coming on here now and again.

[Wade Garrett]

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I can more than look after myself and if you knew my background and reputation it's not me you would be fearing for.

 

The fan ownership sceme was killed off yesterday afternoon in my lounge. not at the meeting 4 hours later.

 

The SISA influence was sidelined at the same time.

 

Last night's meeting was an intelligence gathering exercise from the parties present, other than SISA who didn't show any visible evidence of having any.

 

The deal with the ST is that we carry on in a parallel way supporting each other on the understanding we are a last ditch rescue if all else fails. in the unlikely event of now being needed the trust is the ideal ready made vehicle to launch a rescue. At that stage there could be a combining and a revamp of the trust. We are now working together.

 

Those that didn't want a back up plan can put their hands up now.

 

I, Ron, Duncan and the saveoursaints group have worked to that criteria from the beginning. Everybody's ideal solution was an investor to buy the lot ASAP. Nobody wants a fans owned club unless there was no alternative.

 

I've said it time and time again, yet the same people are making the same comments about fan ownership. It seems to me everybody can type but nobody is reading anything as written but trying to interpret something that isn't there.

 

Nobody is trying to set up a bid for the club, for a start it would be the end of the summer for me, a logistical nightmare, and would certainly fail to get any support. The exception-a rescue facing liquidation which is looking less likely by the day thank goodness.

 

 

This is the last comment I'm going to make on where we stand.

 

Fair play to you for sidelining SISA. They certainly muddied the waters by saying a trust owning club was the only way to go. This was why I was so up against what I thought you were trying to do.

 

I certainly have a different opinion of what you were/are trying to do now.

[derry]

Excellent post Mark - I agree 100%.

I think a relaunched trust mk2 as a fans focal point is the way to go, combining all requirements and putting a strong legal entity in place, rather than an association.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I think a relaunched trust mk2 as a fans focal point is the way to go, combining all requirements and putting a strong legal entity in place, rather than an association.

 

Amen

Whats your handicap by the way?

[derry]

Fair play to you for sidelining SISA. They certainly muddied the waters by saying a trust owning club was the only way to go. This was why I was so up against what I thought you were trying to do.

 

I certainly have a different opinion of what you were/are trying to do now.

 

Thanks Wade, of course actions speak louder than words, with me what you see is what you get. Unless of course I'm setting something up, then you won't hear or see anything until the result reveals itself.

[derry]

Amen

Whats your handicap by the way?

 

It's gone from 6 to 12 in two years due a knee operation but thank goodness it's on it's way down again, first target single figures by the end of the season.

 

Are you going tomorrow? Ron is close to me if you are around.

[Mole]

I think a relaunched trust mk2 as a fans focal point is the way to go, combining all requirements and putting a strong legal entity in place, rather than an association.

 

How can this happen if the club is in private ownership, i.e no shares?

[hypochondriac]

Fed up with this now. Mark that was a good post you made. People know my views about the Trust but if they were rebranded or restructured in some way so that people like derry were in charge with the correct intentions then I would be fully behind it. That's my last word on the subject.

[Viking Warrior]

I was a bit suspicious of Derry at first especially the link with the Fab 4.

 

I am elated that he has distanced himself from SISA and that we have a genuine decent fan trying to bring us fans together. SISA have always been a thorn and Derrys refreshing comments re chorley and mcmillan are very much applauded.

 

I think Nick Illinsgworth is okay perhaps gets inadvertently dragged along with the media road show but I have often seen him mediate between the gallgher brothers sorry chorley and mcmillan

 

I will do what ever I can to help the club, I have no political agenda except to

see the survival of Southampton football club.

 

Apart from the the ****stirrers can I ask my fellow fans to unite together and do what ever we can to ensure Saints survival.

 

Anyway Derry you have my support who ever you are.

 

Come on saints get us a victory tomorrow

[dubai_phil]

I think that the work the guys have done is outstanding.

 

I've said all through this I hope we have a new beginning and the old "hangers on" fall by the way-side.

 

IF we get out of this with new owners then the old logic, motivations, positions and many of the legal reasons for the varying groups also become irrelevant.

 

Hopefully we will become Southampton Football Club 2009, the fans groups can do the same. We have seen how amazingly after all the calls, all the sniping and all the speeches that it is often simple ideas from creative fans which can produce a quick result when given the chance.

Removing the old thinking and entrenched positions will give that a chance to flourish.

 

Derry I originally hoped you were wasting your time, but I'm starting to think you're on the verge of creating something new here and probably screwing up the rest of your life. But we need it, you are the reluctant hero, I think you and the guys are going to be really busy putting MarkSFC's simple ideas into practice when takeover day comes

[um pahars]

The common fan would not be running the company. It would be no different from the existing shareholder relationship. When you buy shares in a company, it isn't a pre requiste that you could or owuld have to run the company.

 

Well I don't agree with the common fan being on the board, I think regular open forums etc and a 'customer care' department are all that is needed.

 

Some people live through rose-tinted glasses and still see themselves as 'fans' in the eyes of the business. The fact is, we are customers first and foremost.

 

My problem is that we have seen this Club run into the ground by a clique of supposed businessmen.

 

Exactly, so god knows what would happen in a boardroom who not only squabble, like it seems they did last night, but also don't know anything about running a football club!

 

 

 

I'm strugglng to reconcile some of your posts on this with what you're saying now.

 

I said from the start that if the Saints Trust had any other agenda other than getting one of them on the board, then I would possibly join.

 

If you can tell me ONE time when the Saints Trust have represented their membership in the last year, then I would be pleased to hear it.

 

Maybe I am wrong and they did communicate and ballot their members, who passed the motion to campaign for the council to buy the stadium, or for this 'fans ownership' .

 

Maybe I am wrong and they really do have 838 active members?

 

Maybe I am wrong and they have communicated with their membership in the last year.

 

Maybe I am wrong and they are not using the Saints Trust name to massage their own ego's and cosy up as close to the board as possible.

 

Maybe I am wrong and they have given their members good value for their membership.

 

Then again, maybe I am not wrong....

 

 

Struggling again. Is it the uber fans you have a problem (as you're saying here) or do you have a problem with the concept???

 

My main issue is how the corrupt Saints Trust is being used as a vehicle for certain individuals to live their dream of running a football club.

 

So first and foremost it is the 'uber fans' I have a problem with.

 

However in a close second is the concept of having a fan on the board, I don't see a need for one individual to be privvy to things going on at the club, whilst others are kept in the dark. The amount of NDA's handed out at football clubs nowadays, it just wouldn't work.

 

Some serious questions as hopefully it might flesh out some of the reasons for you thinking this way, as being honest whilst a degree of scepticism is to be expected here (as I think there are some very bug hurdles to jump over), I do think some of your way of thining is somewhat hypocricital and contradictory.

 

My reasons are based on what Saints Trust or 'SISA' have done in the last few years.

 

Saints Trust is a group of a dozen or so mates, with next to no active members.

 

SISA is a group of half a dozen mates, with no active members.

 

Neither has done anything other than interviews and release statements, which are on behalf of nobody but themselves and their own ideas.

 

Nobody can try and tell me that either organisation represents their members, they are in it for themselves and nobody else.

 

Now I challenge anyone to prove to me different.

 

So are you just against those currently (and previously) running the Trust and their actions to date, or are you against the various principles involved, because from this post I don't really thing you have been clear? Additionally you seem to be confused and have contradicted yourself on a number of issues (notably regarding the involvement of the "common" fan).

 

I think many of your points are valid criticisms of the current (and previous) Boards of the Trust, but that's not to say they are valid of the concepts and principles involved. I'm sure there are mnay issues that would need to be resolved, but don't think you have really highlighted any major ones here.

 

I think there are some serious problems with regards funding (now and going forward) with such initiatives, but sadly your criticisms don't really seem to get past the point of having a moan about how things are currently (and previously) run (I'd liken it to having a moan about Lowe and therefore saying SFC will always be rubbish, cos it's rubbish with Lowe at the helm).

 

Cutting to the chase, I think you have provided a number of good reasons why the current board of The Trust might not be worthy of your support, but I have yet to see you come up with a decent argument as to why the concept of a Supporters Trust is unworkable. I think there are some very valid points/issues you could have mentioned, but you to date I don't think you have engaged with them.

Edited 25 April, 2009 by um pahars

[RoswellSaint]

Derry - You are doing a great job. You have had a lot of criticism aimed in your direction and answered it fairly and squarely. Hopefully, we won't need the fans' rescue but the work you are doing is important.

 

Maybe out of this will come good owners and a worthwhile, independent fans group that can speak for us if things don't go well at some point.

[um pahars]

As the original Trust was (or at least was advertised as) just for SLH shareholders, it effectively has no real purpose now.

 

You really couldn't be further from the truth.

 

I think there are huge problems that would need to be overcome to get fans ownership/involvement going at this moment in time, but I have to say the amount of misinformation and ignorance on alot of these issues is disconcerting.

[derry]

An association is not the way forward it is too wishy washy and in the event of another situation like the present would not be in a position to act decisively.

 

A revamped Trust is the way to go. It is a legal entity and would need dynamism to get it going. I have no doubt those people are around right now because I've been in contact with them, all the professions, real expertise, dynamic people, achievers.

 

That is the way to go, revamp the constitution, bring in postal ballots by the reform society and attract the ordinary fan.

 

It would not attract the anarchic lunatic fringe because the postal ballot would neuter them.

 

It would bring it's own integrity with it. With intelligent well qualified people running it it would be in pole position to represent the supporters concerns and interests with any owners.

 

It is time to put Lowe, SISA and trust mk1 into the history books and move on. If we don't all this will just have been a bloody waste of time.

[Gingeletiss]

Does this mean I have to burn my Trust certificate?????;)

[derry]

I was a bit suspicious of Derry at first especially the link with the Fab 4.

 

I am elated that he has distanced himself from SISA and that we have a genuine decent fan trying to bring us fans together. SISA have always been a thorn and Derrys refreshing comments re chorley and mcmillan are very much applauded.

 

I think Nick Illinsgworth is okay perhaps gets inadvertently dragged along with the media road show but I have often seen him mediate between the gallgher brothers sorry chorley and mcmillan

 

I will do what ever I can to help the club, I have no political agenda except to

see the survival of Southampton football club.

 

Apart from the the ****stirrers can I ask my fellow fans to unite together and do what ever we can to ensure Saints survival.

 

Anyway Derry you have my support who ever you are.

 

Come on saints get us a victory tomorrow

 

I like Nick, he is coming over as a well meaning decent guy. He has been sensible and a pleasure to deal with, when under pressure the other night he stuck to our agreement. You can't expect more than that.

 

Thanks for the support.

 

SISA remind me of a chicken with it's neck broken, wings flapping, legs kicking, just hasn't realised its dead yet.

[derry]

Does this mean I have to burn my Trust certificate?????;)

If the trust revamps itself it would give you a genuine say.:smt117;)

[derry]

The Trust unless through an emergency rescue it became the owners of SFC, should forget about fan directors and concentrate on building up a huge membership in a trust with real integrity and expertise that can liase with the owners and if they are not happy take them to task.

 

Sensible owners will have no problem with an organisation like that, which has a legal status in it's own right. If a huge membership is built up it gives the trust a status that no owner could ignore.

 

It's a bit like having a sensible, non militant nevertheless powerful union.

Unless arrangements are struck, the union can exert real pressure. Ask Duncan he knows exactly where I am coming from.