Thinking Of Joining The St But..

[Nibor]

Nibor,

I don't regret putting what I did, as it is an opinion I have formed over the time I have been reading this forum and I'm afraid I just snapped and had to put something after your constant moaning and inability to read other posters responses before jumping in with the usual 'I'm right you're wrong and quite obviously better than you' (yes I am paraphrasing and possibly using some artistic licence) post.

You seem like you can't take being disagreed with. You interpret a difference of opinion as constant moaning and someone thinking they're better than you or not reading your posts. If you care that much have a look over my posts, you'll find there's plenty of positive posts as well as constructive criticism... I guess it's your inability to read them then eh?

Obviously you didn't read any of my other posts on here as they have been mostly polite and asking reasonable questions regarding the ST.

I read all the posts. I disagreed with the one I replied to, for the reasons I gave. That's what a forum is about isn't it?

Which part of what I posted in reply to you earlier in this thread, where I pointed out that the ST had put massive amounts of effort into commucation and publicity, was it that upset you so badly then?

[jellyred]

I can take being disagreed with but not in the manner in which you post. Which appears to be with an unfounded arrogance in all your replies. The board members of the ST have replied and have answered my and others questions quite openly and (for me at least) without any need to belittle the questioner. However in your replies you seem to think that as people ask questions they haven't bothered to look for the information they need. When I can assure you these people have it simply means that they couldn't find it or in terms of my 'Old Boy Clubs' statement meant that myself and other fans, yes friends of mine, felt alienated from the trust. It is not simply 'lazy ignorance'.

All I can say is thank god you are not a board member. As I have found that the board members who have replied to me and others on here have been open and honest with me and have helped answer questions I had about the trust and quite possibly gain another member. And not in anyway been condecending like yourself. By the way, I answer not only for me but also the other posters you criticise and belittle.

[The Fat Controller]

Swindlered - Great posting, constructive and answering questions

Super Squirrel - Posting reasonable questions and getting ridiculous answers.

Nibor - *comment removed by mods due to language*

Baird - Think before you post

Now this is an offensive and aggresive posting...at least for one member

Slightly immature and a slur on one of the better, consistent and mature posters on this forum. Nibor makes an excellent contribution to this forum.

Baird's comments, while slightly tongue in cheek, make valuable points and are correct.

I still, having read, read and re-read this thread, cannot understand why yourself, Collis and bh_red are so negative towards a trust that are working towards the aim of moving BCFC forward, and gaining fans, regardless on status a say in the club. I don't understand how a group of people who had not known each other before the formation of the trust can be mistaken for an "old boys club".

If you are under the impression that the trust works for anything other than the benefit of the club, then you are indeed mistaken. And the suggestions (*i think it was Collis rather than yourself) that the Trust should be working towards a motion that the club has repeatedly (and reasonably) rejected for a number of reasons (this being the East End, by the way) is quite frankly ridiculous.

The trust, as Baird states, is doing all it can to provide information to members and non members alike. You appear to be ignoring this.

I don't think you could be more wrong - it seems to me the Trust have bent over backwards to be open and transparent and to communicate their aims, as you would expect of an organisation that is looking to recruit new members. I also reckon their representatives have been incredibly diplomatic and tolerant in the face of some very ignorant critisism from some quarters.

I don't know and have never met (as far as I know) any ST board members, neither do I have any interest in joining any so-called old boys club. But, having been presented with their agenda (without having to go looking for it), I joined up because I supported their aims. It was easy!

Would just like to echo City Rocker's thoughts here. I am a member of the ST for the same reasons as him - I support their aims, and applaud anyone with the drive, initiative and courage to get off their arse and do something to try and improve things.

Normally I tend to be a bit of a 'doer' - when I get involved in something I like to get very involved. I've taken a back seat as far as the ST is concerned as I'm already pretty busy with work and family obligations that don't give me much spare time. And I have to say, I'm glad that I didn't stick my head over the parapet, having read some of the unfair criticism that hard working, honest ST board members are attracting from certain quarters.

The sad fact is - and I know this from experience - that there will always be people who aren't interested in engaging in a democratic process, working to effect change or having an open debate about how best to mould and change an organistaion. Instead they find it much easier to sit outside and criticise, often based on innacurate information or a lack of understanding of the issues - an understanding that would actually be much improved if they took the time to join, listen to other people's views and enter into the debate.

This isn't to say that the ST should be above criticism, and my impression has been that people such as Tompo, Jay and Thatcham Red actually welcome people's views and opinions, even critical ones, providing they are fair and accurate. But I think they have shown remarkable tolerance in the face of some very ill-informed and subjective sniping.

Agree with the above two posts, and will be joining the Trust shortly. (after pay-day )

Nibor,

I don't regret putting what I did, as it is an opinion I have formed over the time I have been reading this forum and I'm afraid I just snapped and had to put something after your constant moaning and inability to read other posters responses before jumping in with the usual 'I'm right you're wrong and quite obviously better than you' (yes I am paraphrasing and possibly using some artistic licence) post.

Obviously you didn't read any of my other posts on here as they have been mostly polite and asking reasonable questions regarding the ST.

Polite or not, this (quoted) post is very hypocritical. It is you that seems incapable of reading other posters responses.

[jellyred]

still, having read, read and re-read this thread, cannot understand why yourself, Collis and bh_red are so negative

If you had read them you would see I am not negative towards the trust and merely needed some points clarifying, which the board of the ST have now clarified and have quite possibly gained a new member. I admire the hard work they put in in THEIR free time as its something I wouldn't be able to do.

Polite or not, this (quoted) post is very hypocritical. It is you that seems incapable of reading other posters responses.

How is it hypocritical when I have read the responses, unlike your goodself.

[Collis]

If you are under the impression that the trust works for anything other than the benefit of the club, then you are indeed mistaken. And the suggestions (*i think it was Collis rather than yourself) that the Trust should be working towards a motion that the club has repeatedly (and reasonably) rejected for a number of reasons (this being the East End, by the way) is quite frankly ridiculous.

You obviously didn't read my posts then.

I used the EE as an example. I said myself there would never be a solution to the EE debate.

I have also made positive comments about the ST (saying its a good way of getting fans views to the club etc.)

My negative comments might sound harsh, but I don't think anyone can say they don't know where I am coming from on the points I made. And I don't think anyone has completely disagreed with me.

Do you're research before you post.

[The Fat Controller]

As I started the thred I'll post what I think to be the main problem with apathy and how the ST is viewed.

To me whilst it is a noble and good thing to set up and give your own time for free to run a supporters trust for any club. The feeling I have for the BCFC one is that it seems like it was setup by a selection of friends and their associates (fine to begin with) and it is now run by these people without any kind of new, or current members really having a voice as much as you say everyone has. Even though people may be free to come along to the meetings etc it looks very much like a kind of Old Boys Club and as such is something I, for one, would not (currently) like to be a part of.And yes, I do understand that decisions need to be taken by some kind of elected board and not everything can be put out to a public vote.

Am i mistaken in viewing the emboldened post as negative? The tag "Old Boys Club" certainly sounds like a misinformed slur to me.

If you had read them you would see I am not negative towards the trust and merely needed some points clarifying, which the board of the ST have now clarified and have quite possibly gained a new member. I admire the hard work they put in in THEIR free time as its something I wouldn't be able to do.

How is it hypocritical when I have read the responses, unlike your goodself.

a) Perhaps i have misinterpreted your comments, maybe you could clarify.

b) I have read the responses.

[Topsham Red]

I have to back Jellyred up on this one, i for one have been asking questions which the ST board have answered, i don't think asking questions can be deemed negative???

In fact certain members of the board have welcomed our questioning and debate as hopefully it will increase mine and othere understanding of what they are trying to achieve and help them communicate it to others.

But certain people on this forum seem to think that if you ask a question your trying to shoot and snip at people. - Simply not true i'm afraid, just trying to find things out, which i have and have found it very informative.

For me to join something, firstly i want to know all about it. - hence the questioning.

[jellyred]

Am i mistaken in viewing the emboldened post as negative? The tag "Old Boys Club" certainly sounds like a misinformed slur to me.

If you read the whole post and responses then you would of seen that it was MY BELIEF that it seemed like that, hardly a slur on the ST. And members of the ST board have since addressed my post and I am quite satisfied with their responses.

[The Fat Controller]

The ST love Steve L. That is their main purpose.

An unfounded dig, sarcastic or not.

The minority.

I have posted on this forum for years, but I don't agree with ST's policies. As I have commented before I don't want a ban so I will let it be.

Another (implied) unfounded dig at the trusts moderation of this board.

I know that ST's in other clubs have been a failure.

And what bearing does this have on City's Trust?

And how was the 5k generated?

Who had the decision on how it would be spent?

But surely apart of the 5k the ST raised was from fans not related to the ST. Or was it all raised by members?

I am not saying the ST and the 5k is not helping the club, but is it really for the fans? I am positive that most fans don't even know what the ST is let alone support it.

Agreed.

The Trust, in the thread alone, have made numerous attempts to supply you with information.

Exactly, I can speak for many other supporters who also find the similarity confusing.

Although I find the 5k helpful to the club's facilities, I also recognise that SL and the board of directors could have easily found that 5k. What difference has it really made?

I would rather have seen that money invested in the East End, or something "the supporters" really care about.

I don't understand how you can criticise the Trust for providing money to be spent on the club's facilities, it appears to be unfounded.

If they invited me, I would be more then happy to express my views to them in person.

£12 a year to express my opinion? Maybe if i knew it would make a difference,

You seemed resigned to "not making a difference" when you haven't even tried, and the only view so far that i can see that you have expressed is that the trust is allegedly "poorly advertised" and "poor at providing information"

Too be fair, In many of my posts on this thread I have tried to give constructive criticism. I stated that there was a confusion between the ST and the SC which ST members agreed on.

Go back and read my post again. I said, "Although I find the 5k helpful to the club's facilities"

So clearly I am not complaining about the 5k invested in facilities, I am merely disappointed on the distribution of the funds. I think it is unfair to spend money that has been raised by hundreds of supporters, through membership fees and fund raising on something that was ultimately decided by 20 board members calling themselves the "supporters" trust.

I just find that improving training facilities is something that is the responsibility of the club. It would have been nicer to conduct polls or questionnaires through all the members of the ST to see where they would like to see the money invested. In that circumstance it would have benefited the ST substantially as members of the trust would feel more involved and other fans would want to join so that they could voice their opinions as well.

I think that investing the money in the training facilities was a great gesture, just not very groundbreaking, and certainly not enough for supporters like me to stand up and want to be apart of the ST. However, if you had gone down the right channels, conducted better research etc, the decision might have been different. I speak for many fans i know who are confused that you invested the money in something that is the clubs responsibility.

Dare I say it, but its a good example. If you invested the money in making the East End a safe place for home fans to use it would be ground breaking and more people would be inclined to join the ST. It would show that the ST can truly make a difference and speaks for a majority of supporters, not just a minority. (I'm just using the EE as an example, not saying it would have been possible).

Can you provide another example other than the East End then to support your points.

You obviously didn't read my posts then.

I used the EE as an example. I said myself there would never be a solution to the EE debate. Point taken

I have also made positive comments about the ST (saying its a good way of getting fans views to the club etc.)

My negative comments might sound harsh, but I don't think anyone can say they don't know where I am coming from on the points I made. And I don't think anyone has completely disagreed with me. Again, the only real comments i cans ee that your making is to accuse the Trust of being poorly advertised. The trust has on a number of occassions made information available to all.

Do you're research before you post.

How blunt. Thankyou.

If you read the whole post and responses then you would of seen that it was MY BELIEF that it seemed like that, hardly a slur on the ST. And members of the ST board have since addressed my post and I am quite satisfied with their responses.

Then i apologise for not joining the thread sooner.

You state you are "satisfied with their responses", does that mean you no longer view the trust as "an old boys club". Could you clarify this for me please?

I have to back Jellyred up on this one, i for one have been asking questions which the ST board have answered, i don't think asking questions can be deemed negative???

In fact certain members of the board have welcomed our questioning and debate as hopefully it will increase mine and othere understanding of what they are trying to achieve and help them communicate it to others.

But certain people on this forum seem to think that if you ask a question your trying to shoot and snip at people. - Simply not true i'm afraid, just trying to find things out, which i have and have found it very informative.

For me to join something, firstly i want to know all about it. - hence the questioning.

Asking questions isnt negative. Criticism is. IMO, labelling the Trust an "old boys club" is unfounded criticism.

I for one have appreciated this thread as it improved my understanding of the Trust. Perhaps I, like a number of trust (and forum) members have become fatigued with unjustified criticism, which some have displayed in this thread.

I agree with the sentiments in your last statement also, but born from this some forumites have criticised the Trust for not providing enough information and for "under-advertising" which is completely unjust.

[bh_red]

I still, having read, read and re-read this thread, cannot understand why yourself, Collis and bh_red are so negative towards a trust that are working towards the aim of moving BCFC forward, and gaining fans, regardless on status a say in the club. I don't understand how a group of people who had not known each other before the formation of the trust can be mistaken for an "old boys club".

yes, they maybe working for the benefit of the club, but whilst they collect subscription fee's from their members they have to be held accountable for what they are actually doing? The trust board members regardless of what I actually think of them, have put alot of time into this and even if my questions are looked at in a negative light, the ST members have said that they encourage constructive critisim as it can help the way they do things, whether you like my views or not, I have put them out there and various ST Board members have responded to them to the best of their abilitity.

as for the "old boys club" comments I suggest you re-read what was written and what they have said themselves, This was orginally mentioned because it was as it has been suggested at ST board level that there was a potential "us and them" forming between them and other ST members and it was not something they wanted to continue, I suggest you read some of the minutes from thier meetings to get further info on that.

http://www.bristolcityst.org.uk/

[Collis]

Can you provide another example other than the East End then to support your points.

Yes, which I did if you scroll up the page and have a look. There's catering, Dolman seats, ticket prices etc.

You have just picked out random quotes, if you read the entire thread you will see that I always explained my comments.

[The Fat Controller]

Yes, which I did if you scroll up the page and have a look. There's catering, Dolman seats, ticket prices etc.

You have just picked out random quotes, if you read the entire thread you will see that I always explained my comments.

Would you prefer me to quote everything that you have said in the thread, and we can analyse it word by word?

[jellyred]

Do you not understand that the post where I stated 'Old Boys Club' was my belief, and the nature of the post invited the Board of the ST to debunct it for me. Which they did.

That is what satisfied with their response means.

[Nibor]

I can take being disagreed with but not in the manner in which you post.

I think you're reading a tone into my posts which isn't there.

Which appears to be with an unfounded arrogance in all your replies.

I think that it's quite arrogant to make a lot of unfounded accusations against people working hard for something they believe in. I still don't understand exactly what your view that it was an old boys club was based on.

The board members of the ST have replied and have answered my and others questions quite openly and (for me at least) without any need to belittle the questioner.

Belittle? I think you're being oversensitive.

However in your replies you seem to think that as people ask questions they haven't bothered to look for the information they need. When I can assure you these people have it simply means that they couldn't find it or in terms of my 'Old Boy Clubs' statement meant that myself and other fans, yes friends of mine, felt alienated from the trust. It is not simply 'lazy ignorance'.

The lazy ignorance comment was aimed at this suggestion that the trust is undemocratic and the board members do what they want irrespective of what members think. I think that's ignorance, because it is very clearly democratic. I think that's lazy because it makes it very clear that the poster hasn't read the constitution, or even the basic information (or if they have they've just ignored it) which I'd consider to be a basic courtesy before posting something like that.

All I can say is thank god you are not a board member.

I agree, I wouldn't want to work that hard on something and then get nothing for my trouble but having my motives and integrity questioned on the internet.

As I have found that the board members who have replied to me and others on here have been open and honest with me and have helped answer questions I had about the trust and quite possibly gain another member.

Fair play to them for having the patience.

And not in anyway been condecending like yourself. By the way, I answer not only for me but also the other posters you criticise and belittle.

I'd work on your spelling, it's condescending.

[Collis]

Would you prefer me to quote everything that you have said in the thread, and we can analyse it word by word?

Yes, because then you will realise you are not making any sense. You will also wonder why you are asking me things I have already answered.

[jellyred]

Thanks for the english lesson.

For me, this is the important bit (MY views), before the thread I didn't see that the ST was clearly democratic. Just because you did does not make anyones views less valid which is how you are coming across. The 'Old Boys Club' view was one I had and one that has been noted at bored level.

I had certain views of the ST when this thread started, these are now starting to change thanks to the ST's replies and helpfulness.

FYI posted by Swindlered in Post #22

In answer to the question - is the ST all a bit matey. You'd have to say yes. My best mate says that the ST appears cliquey and he's a paid up member.

[bh_red]

I think you're reading a tone into my posts which isn't there.

I think that it's quite arrogant to make a lot of unfounded accusations against people working hard for something they believe in. I still don't understand exactly what your view that it was an old boys club was based on.

Belittle? I think you're being oversensitive.The lazy ignorance comment was aimed at this suggestion that the trust is undemocratic and the board members do what they want irrespective of what members think. I think that's ignorance, because it is very clearly democratic. I think that's lazy because it makes it very clear that the poster hasn't read the constitution, or even the basic information (or if they have they've just ignored it) which I'd consider to be a basic courtesy before posting something like that.

I agree, I wouldn't want to work that hard on something and then get nothing for my trouble but having my motives and integrity questioned on the internet.Fair play to them for having the patience.

I'd work on your spelling, it's condescending.

reading through this recent postings and looking through Jellyred has been very polite and diplomatic, he has asked questions some harsh and some not so and has been answered in a suitable manner by people from the ST, no bitchyness nothing, senisble discussion other people have stuck in their 2p worth but basically it was a civil conversation, what isn't needed is for other to then totally hammer ever little bit of their posting, he asked questions, they answered them,

all you have done is come on here and be condescending to this user, to a point where he has snapped at you,

the old boys club view was based on something a ST Board member has said themself in this posting and agree with that view, and also information that is easily found on the ST website in their minutes of one of their meetings where they have said that the board was becoming seperate from the rest of their members, so it was a fully justifed comment

[The Fat Controller]

I think you're reading a tone into my posts which isn't there.

I think that it's quite arrogant to make a lot of unfounded accusations against people working hard for something they believe in. I still don't understand exactly what your view that it was an old boys club was based on.

The lazy ignorance comment was aimed at this suggestion that the trust is undemocratic and the board members do what they want irrespective of what members think. I think that's ignorance, because it is very clearly democratic. I think that's lazy because it makes it very clear that the poster hasn't read the constitution, or even the basic information (or if they have they've just ignored it) which I'd consider to be a basic courtesy before posting something like that.

I agree, I wouldn't want to work that hard on something and then get nothing for my trouble but having my motives and integrity questioned on the internet.Fair play to them for having the patience.

I think this is what i have been trying to say, without being able to articulate it.

[Barrs Court Red]

FYI posted by Swindlered in Post #22

In answer to the question - is the ST all a bit matey. You'd have to say yes. My best mate says that the ST appears cliquey and he's a paid up member.

If that was true I very much doubt luke Junes, Thatcham and indeed Milo would have given me the time of day a few weeks ago. They did, so it's time to but the clique myth to bed now.

[Nibor]

Thanks for the english lesson.

I hope you didn't interpret that as anything other than irony.

For me, this is the important bit (MY views), before the thread I didn't see that the ST was clearly democratic. Just because you did does not make anyones views less valid which is how you are coming across.

I don't see how anyone who's looked into the trust could consider it undemocratic. The board members were voted for, stuff at the meeetings is voted on - that's pretty much the definition of democracy isn't it?

I haven't found it possible to miss the massive amount of publicity work that the Trust have done, so I thought you saying that Baird was spouting shit was wrong.

I didn't say or mean to imply that your views weren't valid, I was just disagreeing with them.

The 'Old Boys Club' view was one I had and one that has been noted at bored level.

I had certain views of the ST when this thread started, these are now starting to change thanks to the ST's replies and helpfulness.

FYI posted by Swindlered in Post #22

In answer to the question - is the ST all a bit matey. You'd have to say yes. My best mate says that the ST appears cliquey and he's a paid up member.

The old boys comment seemed to be based on an incorrect perception that the board members were all mates who got together and formed a trust and then created members without portfolio to make sure they all got on the board. The reality seems to be that they've become "matey" through working together on it.

what isn't needed is for other to then totally hammer ever little bit of their posting, he asked questions, they answered them,

I haven't done that have I?

all you have done is come on here and be condescending to this user, to a point where he has snapped at you,

All I've done is post my views. I didn't snap at anyone and I wasn't condesencing I just disagreed strongly with his, Collis' and your accusations.

And I'm quite amazed that you can post that with a straight face.

the old boys club view was based on something a ST Board member has said themself in this posting and agree with that view, and also information that is easily found on the ST website in their minutes of one of their meetings where they have said that the board was becoming seperate from the rest of their members, so it was a fully justifed comment

The old boys club view was one held before an ST board member posted anything in this thread, jellyred says so himself. Disagreeing with it was also a fully justified comment.

[bh_red]

I hope you didn't interpret that as anything other than irony.

I don't see how anyone who's looked into the trust could consider it undemocratic. The board members were voted for, stuff at the meeetings is voted on - that's pretty much the definition of democracy isn't it?

I haven't found it possible to miss the massive amount of publicity work that the Trust have done, so I thought you saying that Baird was spouting shit was wrong.

I didn't say or mean to imply that your views weren't valid, I was just disagreeing with them.

The old boys comment seemed to be based on an incorrect perception that the board members were all mates who got together and formed a trust and then created members without portfolio to make sure they all got on the board. The reality seems to be that they've become "matey" through working together on it.

I haven't done that have I?

All I've done is post my views. I didn't snap at anyone and I wasn't condesencing I just disagreed strongly with his, Collis' and your accusations.

And I'm quite amazed that you can post that with a straight face.

The old boys club view was one held before an ST board member posted anything in this thread, jellyred says so himself. Disagreeing with it was also a fully justified comment.

the "old boys club" is just a term, I'm fully aware of when/how and why it was mentioned by jelly, the point was that it was felt that certain board members seemed to form a bit of a cliche hence the term "old boys club" maybe not the right term but regardless, either way Swindlered confirm that perhaps the board was a bit like that, looking on their site it has been brought up in ST meetings that their has been that perception with the ST between members and the board.

anyway.......5:30 has gone, I'm going to the pub!

[atyeosarah]

As an ST member I've found this thread very insightful.

I'll openly admit that I got involved with the ST due to the nagging from boyfriend. I have made some very close friends out of it. I attend open meetings and never feel that my opinions or lack of knowledge is ever used against me.

I hope that those of you who are interested attended future meetings and feel as welcome as everyone has made me.

[rayer]

OK I have gone through this long post and decided to chuck in my two pennys worth.

The first thing is to put this into black and white facts, a group of Bristol City FANS want to create a membership group to help the other fans and the club. Thats it really.

These group of people are not special, they are not trained in this business, and do not get paid for it, they are just like me and you but they love the club enough to devote their free time to try and help it.

OK, some hiccups may have been made along the way, but EVERY new venture goes through dodgy patches and makes mistakes, if not, then every company/organisation created would be in the position of the likes of Sony.

I know quite a few of the trust board members, and they are your typical BCFC fans, they sing at matches, go to away games, go out on the piss, moan about the pasties etc. One might even be sat near you at at the game, stinking of beer !!!

The only difference between them and others in the stand, is they are willing to try and do something positive for us and BCFC.

This is where the rest of us fans come in, we need to communicate with them and help them develop, point out any problems you have, any mistakes you think they may have done, and any ideas that you may have, so in the future this club can hopefully have a fans army that will NOT be walked all over by anyone. (And with the state of lower league football at the moment, we might need it one day)

As for the 'old boys club' etc, this is where AGMs come in, if you don't like an individual, cast your vote and make it known, not everything is set in stone and the board will probably be completely different in the years to come. I personally would love to see a passionate "sensible" Subber on the ST board one day (Sensible I hear you ask ) This in my opinion can only make the Trust stronger.

Anyway, we don't need to go on any witchhunts or attack them all the time, if we have any issues, just bring it up, they are human, they will listen, they are fans of the same team, they hate the Gas as well and they will take the matters on board and communicate back. Simple.

[Jay]

This is where the rest of us fans come in, we need to communicate with them and help them develop, point out any problems you have, any mistakes you think they may have done, and any ideas that you may have, so in the future this club can hopefully have a fans army that will NOT be walked all over by anyone. (And with the state of lower league football at the moment, we might need it one day).

People do communicate but the methods of communication vary. Everyone has ideas of how they would like to see improvements made within the Club & many do let it be known to BCST. Ok, so not everyone chooses to be tactful, polite or diplomatic in their approach but we try hard to filter through the comments in order to find the genuine ideas, criticisms or complaints that will help move things forward & develop the Trust. However, what we still lack is people willing to help develop their ideas. Anyone can write down an idea, and whilst we welcome this, it would be even more helpful to have these people on board willing to help turn the cogs.

"Good ideas are common. What's uncommon is people who will work hard enough to bring them about."-Ashleigh Brilliant (English Author)

As for the 'old boys club' etc, this is where AGMs come in, if you don't like an individual, cast your vote and make it known, not everything is set in stone and the board will probably be completely different in the years to come.

It ought to be made clear that membership is required in order to run for a Board position or to vote for/elect a BCST member.

I personally would love to see a passionate "sensible" Subber on the ST board one day (Sensible I hear you ask ) This in my opinion can only make the Trust stronger.

A person's association with a group/website is irrelevant. This isn't a dig at the subcider site or any other site/organisation, it's simply stating that we are looking for passionate fans that agree with the aims & objectives of the Trust and are willing to get stuck in.

[Ian M]

It is important, but when has it ever been an issue? I understand even before the money was invested, our training facilities were arguably the best in the league and pushing for Championship/Premiership standard.

I am not suggesting that fans don't care about training facilities. But it is not something that is debated in the terraces is it, "Have you seen the state of our training facilities?, they are a disgrace!" Its more like, "My bloody cheese burger is cold!" or, "When are they going to update these crappy seats in the Dolman."

I'm probably going to leave this thread now because we are going around in circles! However, I hope my point is clear.

To be fair, having visited the training ground myself it's basicly the standard expected of a private school (being Clifton College's old/current (?) playing fields) and whilst being decent enough for this level, I seriously doubt it goes anywhere near the standard available to most Championship sides or virtually all Prem sides.

Could the fact that our Acadamy is rated amongst the better Acadamies in the country (despite having poorer facilities than many due to justifying the cost at L1 level) be clouding your judgement here?

As one of the ST Board Members have stated since, it was also an area of concern for GJ.

As for it being the club's responsibility to find the money for it, in an ideal world that would be true. However, with the club losing upwards of £1m a year, I suspect it is part of a long list of things the club would like to spend money on but cannot justify.

As for comparing it to other issues, if improving the training facilities leads to improved players (which I think is a fair assumption else why bother having any) and leads to a successfull season, it can be argued that this benefits ALL City fans, even the 30-odd-thousand who only turn up to Cup Finals. I for one don't care a jot when Rovers supporting colleagues point out they have better pasties than us for example as I just point to the nearest set of league tables

[RedTop]

I think that investing the money in the training facilities was a great gesture, just not very groundbreaking, and certainly not enough for supporters like me to stand up and want to be apart of the ST. However, if you had gone down the right channels, conducted better research etc, the decision might have been different. I speak for many fans i know who are confused that you invested the money in something that is the clubs responsibility.

Dare I say it, but its a good example. If you invested the money in making the East End a safe place for home fans to use it would be ground breaking and more people would be inclined to join the ST. It would show that the ST can truly make a difference and speaks for a majority of supporters, not just a minority. (I'm just using the EE as an example, not saying it would have been possible).

You honestly don't see the irony in criticizing an organisation you don't belong to for the way it spent money you did not help to raise?

If you want a say in how money is spent, then either raise it yourself or take an active part in an organisation that does so you can have a credible say in where it should go!

I think some of those such as Secretsquirrel posting on this topic with criticisms that are ill informed or just plain inaccurate, then blaming it on the ST for 'failing to get their message across' forget they surely have a responsibility to at least have the courtesy to check what they are saying before they spout off. It is not as if the ST makes it hard for people to get the info they need. A couple of clicks should do it. Or you could go along to the pub to attend an open meeting. Or email a member via this site or the ST site. Or read the literature handed out free at matches. Or approach a member at one of their stands. Or get put on an email list. Or...well, you get the picture.

There is a valid and constructive debate to be had on what the ST has achieved to date, but to accuse the ST of being a clique, undemocratic, not making enough effort to make supporters aware of its existence or failing to work hard enough on communicating with other fans is just plain barmy. It is not exactly common, as regular forum users may be aware, for me and Nibor to be in total agreement on something, so the fact that we are agreed on this surely says something!

[Meh]

I used to enjoy a bit of ST bashing, but, have stopped now. Instead I am watching from a distance and can see some decent progress.

That's all I can be bothered to say as I don't post on here that much anymore, but, my only comment for ST committee members from flicking through this thread is you have to bite your tongue and take a minute out before posting.

I see examples of Dolly, Tompo and Jay all being sarcastic to questions. I understand your frustration, but, you aren't going to change minds like that.

Keep up the improving work

[Collis]

You honestly don't see the irony in criticizing an organisation you don't belong to for the way it spent money you did not help to raise?

If you want a say in how money is spent, then either raise it yourself or take an active part in an organisation that does so you can have a credible say in where it should go!

I think some of those such as Secretsquirrel posting on this topic with criticisms that are ill informed or just plain inaccurate, then blaming it on the ST for 'failing to get their message across' forget they surely have a responsibility to at least have the courtesy to check what they are saying before they spout off. It is not as if the ST makes it hard for people to get the info they need. A couple of clicks should do it. Or you could go along to the pub to attend an open meeting. Or email a member via this site or the ST site. Or read the literature handed out free at matches. Or approach a member at one of their stands. Or get put on an email list. Or...well, you get the picture.

There is a valid and constructive debate to be had on what the ST has achieved to date, but to accuse the ST of being a clique, undemocratic, not making enough effort to make supporters aware of its existence or failing to work hard enough on communicating with other fans is just plain barmy. It is not exactly common, as regular forum users may be aware, for me and Nibor to be in total agreement on something, so the fact that we are agreed on this surely says something!

Most organisations rely on constructive criticism and feedback to exist.

I read through your post, but there is nothing in there that hasn't already been said.

[Chivs]

I haven't got anything to add to the raging debate but was feeling a little left out so here's my ST comment...

Perhaps your membership numbers would be improved (by 1 at least) if your application form didn't crash my PC every time I try to download it.

Whenever I scroll to the second page, from within IE, Adobe Reader 7.0 crashes.

[lukejones2]

Hi

There's a lot of stuff already written in what is in the main a very healthy debate, rather than revisit old ground I would just like to add that the decision to spend the money from the first share purchase on training facilities was put to all members who attended the AGM (all were invited) and members were asked if they had any objections. They didn't.

Luke