Frazzie

I think your opinion on the share issue is pretty reasonable. Of course, we'd have to have an official agreement in writing from John Boyle that we'd get the return before we emptied the coffers, rather than just a verbal agreement in principle, and that could be where the problem lies. When I said that the disabled enclosure was overdue by over a year, I was referring to the only time (to my knowledge) that the club put a deadline on it. The deadline we were given was that it would be completed before Christmas 2007. But yes, you're absolutely right when you say that it's been much longer overdue in terms of how long the fund has been going. I'm really pleased that this thread has grown to such a length, and that the majority of posts - even the negative ones - have been constructive. Just to summarise, at the meeting tonight I shall raise the following points: - Merging the share fund into the Pitch In! fund. - Updating the website with any missing minutes. - Re-branding the organisation. Is there any other points anyone feels are significant? Frazzle

I can see that this is a long shot, but I'm on the lookout for 4 tickets for the replay. A pm would be much appreciated. Frazzle

Johnstone, Kilmarnock and Shaw. Cox, Paton and Redpath. Sloan, Humphries, Kelly, Watson and Aitkenhead. Etched in my memory, because I'm a better 'Well fan than you. That's why I'm in the Trust and you're not. B) Frazzle

That's a fair point 'Flow, but we also have the Pitch In! fund, which is entirely seperate, and we'll happily hand over the cash for that when the club need it. They are now more than a year overdue on the disabled enclosure, and we're just waiting to fund it. Frazzle

In what way is the Trust not available to the ordinary fan? You can join the Trust on the website, you can get membership forms from the ticket office and, going forward, you'll hopefully be able to pick them up from the Ladbrokes kiosk in the East Stand or the Cooper suite on matchdays. So, in short, it is easy to join the Trust for anyone who goes to home matches, can get to Fir Park during office hours, or has access to the internet. Is there any 'Well fan on the planet that doesn't fall into any of these categories? Frazzle

I agree with what you're saying Johnny. If and when the time ever comes that we are given an elected place on the board, I will vote for whoever I think will do exactly what you've said there. I would be very wary that it would be easy for someone elevated to club board level to become accustommed to cucumber sandwiches and hospitality treatment that they allowed that to cloud their judgement. With regards to someone coming in from outside the Trust with their own views standing against Martin Rose, I would be absolutely all for it. Regardless of who the chairman is, I think it is healthy for there to be some opposition to him, much in the same way I think it is important for the Trust to get feedback such as this, from members and non-members alike, even if it's negative. I don't think there's any other board members who want to be chairman - I certainly don't - so maybe someone brand new is the answer. Frazzle

And as I've said, I absolutely understand your position. I held the exact same view before I joined the Trust. However, regardless of his perceived conflict of interest, there is no-one better qualified for the position who wants it. I genuinely could not even tell you the last time he had to be elected as Chairman, or if, indeed, he ever has. If there's as many people as you say who are against the Trust because of Martin Rose then he could be very easily ousted if you all joined up. The only difficult part would be finding someone to stand for the position. I would imagine that anyone who reads this forum and sees the grief board members get would run a mile from it. Frazzle

Are you volunteering for the job? Would hate to think you were all talk and no trousers.... Frazzle

Superb, well done. A real step in the right direction. Frazzle

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment further on Martins position. However, I do acknowledge that people have the opinion that, given his position on the clubs board, he should not be our chairman. Anyone who has that opinion is perfectly entitled to it, but it's very easy to point to an issue, criticise it and offer no alternative or solution. There is one issue from the meeting that must be kept under wraps for the timebeing. I realise it's not what anyone wants, but when it does come out, I'm sure the majority of people will understand why that is the case. It would not be helpful to our relationship with the club if we were to publicly post what could be perceived as an attack on said club. Our aim is to assist the club, not cause them problems. One issue from the meeting that I haven't mentioned (was going to wait to see if it happened first) was the suggestion that, when the Old Firm play at Fir Park and the club continue to allow them access to the Cooper Stand, the away fans are kept in for 15 minutes after the game. Obviously the 'Well fans are very much against them being in the Cooper Stand in the first place, and I believe that part of the reason for this is the feeling of intimidation not only inside the ground, but in the street afterwards, particularly coming out of the East Stand and having their fans at both sides of you. This suggestion was taken on board and I expect it to be implemented. If it is, I would hope it would go a small way towards making the 'Well fans feel safe in and around their own ground and perhaps tempt back a few fans who stay away on such occasions for these reasons. Frazzle

I understand the Martin Rose argument. As far as the Trusts aims for 2009, some are simple - raise membership numbers, become more accessible to fans and acquire more shares in the club. We will do this by raising our profile through organising fund-raising events such as the annual Quiz Night and sixes tournament plus making considerable donations of equiptment to Gordon Youngs Youth Developement. We also have a 'Pitch In' fund which we hope will be used to construct a new disabled enclosure as the one we have at present is completely inadequate. We also hope to work more closely with Leann Dempster with her new initiatives at the club. I also expect a significant amount of Trust re-branding, with the new website being the start of that. Another aim for the year is to acquire permanent use of the Ladbrokes kiosk and to have a regular information page in the programme. We also hope to be represented on match days in the Cooper Suite pre-match. There is probably more than that but that's all that comes to mind at the moment. Ask me again after the meeting on Wednesday if that's not enough for you. Frazzle

That answer was just bluster. How can we make it more attractive? If we can, we will! Frazzle

You could argue that we aren't obliged to represent non-members, but it is our overall goal to be a fans representative on the board, so we ought to start as we mean to continue. We can't reasonably expect to have a seat on the board, while disregarding the views of the majority of fans. Before anyone says it, I know it can seem as though the current board does exactly that, but our elected member would be on the board as a fans representative, not as a board member in his own right like Martin Rose is. Frazzle

I've asked you already what you think we should be doing and you've not given me an answer. What 'forward movement' would you need to see from us to make you join? Also, there is no guarantee that if you join the Trust, we will always agree with your opinions as a movement, but our stance on any number of issues is moulded by our members. Frazzle

You feeling a bit old, Melvin? I assume it's myself you're talking about when you mention the Supporters Association - it is true to say that I personally don't have a great amount of time for the organisation and I have my reasons for this. I don't have any personal issues with any of their members, but I feel they serve next to no purpose, provide unreasonable opposition to the Trust and are self-serving. One of the first objectives I had when I joined the Trust was to bring the various supporters groups closer together, and to work in harmony with each other to be mutually beneficial for the organisations. However, approaches from the Trust to the Association to run joint ventures was rebuffed for no reason, basically because they don't like the Trust as they feel that our formation has stepped on their toes. I don't have time for that level of petty-mindedness and make no apologies for my indifference towards them. The fact that they, by and large, an older crowd has absolutely nothing to do with it. The Trust board (I think) has had people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s on it in my time there and I think that's healthy. It might be significant to note at this point that one of the issues we've opposed recently is the age of OAP concessions at Fir Park being raised from 60 to 65. Frazzle

No, but to be able to actually influence them you do. Frazzle

I realse that it's down to us to attract members, and what I was saying earlier in the thread is that because we try to represent the views of all Motherwell fans, members or not, that a lot of people don't see the benefit in joining. I've already said that one of the aims for this year is to offer members-only incentives, but that's easier said than done. The reason the Trust want a seat on the board is to have a fans say in the running of the club. Do you not wish that there was a like-minded 'Well fan sitting in the boardroom when the decision was made to hand over the Cooper Stand to the Old Firm? Or when they decided how to distribute tickets for the Nancy game? Frazzle

The Supporters Trust should be representative of the fans they are representing (obviously) so the fact that the head of the Rangers Supporters Trust comes across as a dobber makes perfect sense to me! :-) In all seriousness, the Trust want a seat on the board for an elected (by the Trust members) individual. I don't doubt for a second that if we were granted such a position that the membership would probably increase tenfold so that everyone could have their vote or even put themselves forward. However, it is my belief that the board position will not be forthcoming from Mr Boyle until we have sufficient membership numbers to justify it, which is entirely understandable. That's the catch 22 that I keep talking about. Frazzle

You've hit the nail on the head there, Seagull. I'm partly delighted that someone has summed the situation up so perfectly, but I'm also partly ragin' that I've almost written a book on this thread and not managed to put what I'm saying across so well. Frazzle

I don't know what I've done to give you that impression, airfinz. For what it's worth, that used to be my own opinion of the Trust. I joined up because I recognise what an excellent concept Supporters Trusts are, and how beneficial they can be to fans and clubs alike, and I could see that ours wasn't using that potential. There is a £10 annual fee to join the Trust. I think that's a reasonable fee, but it's not for me to tell people where and how they spend their money. The main objectives of the Trust are to improve communications between the club and the fans, and to represent the fans views, with the overall aim to be given our own, legitimate, elected seat on the board of directors of the club. One of the items on the agenda of this months meeting (scheduled for this Wednesday) is to re-afirm the goals of the movement and to produce a revised Mission Statement. It is no secret that the Trust was set up in a hurry to help the club through administration and, while that was all well and good at the time, I think it's fair to say that since the future of the club has been secured, the Trust has not done itself or the fans justice. The present board do not hide from that fact, but we are doing all we can to change it. Frazzle

I understand your point on that, but I don't agree. Whenever we send a newsletter out, the contents will, by and large, appear on the website, but I think there has to be some things that members are told in advance and have an input to before it's released. As I said in my last post, there's not enough benefits to being a member of the Trust, and I'm very conscious of taking the few remaining ones away. Frazzle

We have a registerred postal address, which is c/o Douglas Barr Solicitors in Wishaw, but for simplicity, you can put it in an email. Every board member has a dedicated MST address - mine is fraz@welltrust.net so feel free to use that. However, it is not essential that you go through official channels. If someone raised something FAO the Trust on here, or sent one of the board members a PM, I guarantee it would be treated in the same manner as an official approach. I would estimate that roughly 5% of season ticket holders are Trust members. I know that this figure is far too low and we're setting about changing that. However, as I've said before, I think that we will struggle to raise the amount, even if we do change popular opinion, as we don't offer anything in the way of incentives (I'm on the case with that just now). What I mean is that, because we attempt to represent all Motherwell fans, a lot of people think that there's no reason to join. Going forward, I aim to change this as a matter of priority. Watch this space. Frazzle

We had that previously and, while it's a good idea in theory, in practise it was practically dormant so I asked for it to be removed. That way, any Trust issues that came up were in the Motherwell section and were then viewed by more people, leading to a higher level of interest. With regards to platforms for us to communicate, we have just spent quite a bit of time re-vamping our website, we send newsletters to our members, and we're hoping to have a regular page in the official programme going forward. Obviously, about half the board post on here regularly aswell so from that point of view, I think we're considerably more open and accessible than the club itself (that's not a dig at the club - I know that progress is being made there aswell). Frazzle

What type of thing do you think we should be doing but aren't, Mon_da_well? Frazzle

I think everything you've said there, Dodge, is 100% reasonable. The one small point I would contest is that I didn't say that everyone has to bring their issues with the club to the Trust. I would prefer if they did for reasons I've already said, but it's entirely their perogative. I was really just wanting to make people aware that we are here to serve a purpose and that fans (members and non-members) shouldn't be discouraged from approaching us. I do think the image of the Trust as an organisation, and the image of it's board members over the past few years is that it's a self-serving closed shop (an accusation I often used to make on here) and I want to get away from that. I'm not niave enough to think that making a few well-intentioned posts on a forum is going to change that overnight, but I genuinely believe that some minds are now so closed to the Trust that we'll never get credit for any forward steps that we do take because of our failings in the past. Frazzle PS - Also a very brief point about the press release. I may have put that across wrongly. I didn't mean that we'd be trying to take the outcome of the meeting to the national press - I just meant that we were going to structure an article of some description for our own website, the club website/programme etc - Motherwell fans outlets basically. We just need to be careful what we say and how we say it as it can be thrown back at us months and years down the line.