[64]

He got a poor squad through,good management?

[64]

I think we’ll be ok .Got rid of a few with reps bigger than ability which is a good thing.
Ok but not brilliant.

[64]

Whereas the guy who picked him was the worst manager ever? Apparently.

[64]

It’s still awful iron-awe ,no matter how much you swear

[64]

Or those that sniped at a manager who got those second rate players through?

[64]

WonderGoals wrote:

No matter how hard you try, Butler won’t sleep with you 64. Seriously, snap out of it.

What a strange chap,I’ve never actually said I like what he’s doing I just never saw why he go so much grief from idiots.Same clowns now skating a keeper before we start

[64]

I agree, it’s brilliant,so much so it hurts my eyes

[64]

Because being a trialist doesn’t mean you’re automatically good enough or able to agree terms.
Perhaps it’s best for AB to say nowt,then nobody will micro dissect it because they’re still bitter he got us promoted

[64]

an octopus?

[64]

exactly

[64]

I personally think that certain trust committee members should wind their necks in until after the trust have met the club again ,the trust is a political organisation within the sphere of SUFC and once a meeting was made apparent they should have shut up until afterwards .It’s not a campaign where you get your retaliation in 1st,it’s about SUFC and how they can work together
The above looks bad but nobody appears to have checked any facts before blasting away
I am still of the opinion that the trust are being treated badly and differently this has to change , these leaks will only entrench people and make any talks difficult .

[64]

it’s abolutely awful

[64]

The trick here is to educate the fans,a director’s 1st priority is the company and board.They can only present points to the board from a fans perspective.The loonies on the FBook group were into Wrihty straight away because He wasn’t slagging Swann off ,.,same morons were at it with the trust because they had to not back the sort of aggressive protests and pitch invasions we saw.

[64]

Any monies the trust hand over wouldn’t be loans

[64]

When I see XXX skating the trust I always think of these

[64]

ironking wrote:

The Trust is independent and represents 1200 voices, whereas I believe UNITY was prompted by the club to put a paper trail to a certain persons random/ad-hoc/unaccounted fundraising. UNITY sprung up from the remnants of SUOSC which had been heavily influenced by people who work at the club Jerry (ticket office supremo) and Earl (matchday experience entry technician).

Hence the current splits in UNITY, which was doomed the moment it tried to fallout with the Iron Trust, then has it turned out very dodgy characters involved with certain predilections for young ladies of questionable age. Allegedly.

The question for me is where are the former SUOSC shares? Are they independent or under the control of UNITY.

Maybe Qwerty can answer as this person seems to represent an insider knowledge of Trust/club matters?

We never did find out about those shares?

[64]

The people who made it possible for someone to come in and “save” the club aren’t capable?
No trust,no asset of community value,no home ,no club . Without the asset the ground would now most likely be rubble. I’d say they can get something done if needs be.Also I know for a fact a trust committee member talked to Swann and brought him back to the table when this current ownership group were negotiating about the ground.As I said ,no trust ,no ground,no club.
For them to now be given the cold shoulder for chasing off FC scam is appalling.
Who went along with the FC scam? Now let me think

[64]

The proposal is clearly a share save scheme to raise money for shares.Snidey it is

[64]

Oh I see,you’ve not read the proposal,or you have and are being snidy , Which is it?

[64]

They never claimed to though?
Bit of an odd argument,not sure why you chose to attack a bunch of fairly decent people,but like when uinty started ,they did it in the same way but thankfully in the end just got on with things.
No need to be snidy when all they want is to fulfill their aims

[64]

You have no case to rest,you’re just being snidy for the sake if it.For some reason you hate the trust and can’t help yourself,get therapy all that rocking backwards and forwards in your chair must be worrying for your family

[64]

You asked a straight question about going to a meeting.Why didn’t you say what you really meant instead of being snidy?
I also believe the fact the trust are proposing to raise funds you know they haven’t got £100k ,Why should anyone just give the club anything? The trust have a clear aim,that’s what they were set up to do.
Just like unity just want to give for nothing,that’s their aim

[64]

Xxx wrote:

Tunnel vision if you have 100k better ways to use that for the club just saying

You’ve lost me,what has your answer which doesn’t make any sense btw,have to do with attending a meeting? You did ask that question after all.
Just another dig at trust?

[64]

Xxx wrote:

Just a question is anybody from the trust going to a share holders review only asking

I don’t know. Why do you ask? Just asking

[64]

who’s fan base?

[64]

cassidystash wrote:

He’s the only one who thinks the goalkeeping situation has improved.

More don’t believe it’s worse.I don’t believe any of last season’s players were good enough,so glad we’ve shook the squad up a bit.Getting rid of Clunan a big step.

[64]

I’m more comfortable now than I was at the end of last season

[64]

It’s also with noting that while FC100000 clearly promote their Champ manager plus scheme as a chance to own ,run and have a say in a club,the club itself downplayed the idea that they (FC100000) would have this involvement,a clear difference between the two parties .The real reason it failed?

[64]

This idea has opened up a while can of worms, it certainly begs questions about FC100000.
FC100000 was mooted about it being a way of buying into the club which provides some extra finance for the club , the assumption being that the shares they bought would lead to the funds being put into the club.
We’re now being fed this idea that if the trust did this it would be from a stock that Michelle kept behind which wood weaken her position ,so unless the others agreed to sell it may be a non starter. So with that in mind and the whole oard apparently wanting FC1000000,how much of that money was actually going into the club an dhow much was just buying shares from shareholders?
It could be that any shares from directors would have seen them donate the cash back into SUFC? It could also be that any shares sold saw them banking their cash ,a perfectly legal thing to do ,them banking it would explain their anger at the FC100000 deal going south.
What cannot be explained is why they are treating the Trust differently to a bunch of gamers. At least not with publicly available knowledge
It would also be nice to know what pot of shares FC100000 were offered.

3 users thanked author for this post.

TheJuryeffsOut, Awaywego, Rene Artois

[64]

anyone but the keeper?

[Author]

Posts