CaleyD

Serves you right for being so feckin slow to reply then!!! :015: Yeah, it does only go back so far. Not sure if their is an add-on for this forum software to give anything better but will add it to Scotty's list. :001:

The club are right in saying that Brewster made sure that we got the best possible compensation deal when he left, however, at the time they seemed happy for the fans to consider him as a Judas. Maybe Happy isn't the right word, but I can't recall seeing any press release informing us that he made sure our pockets were well lined and that he didn't have to do what he did and that had ET not coughed up the cashed he would have stayed. All of the above is true, but right now, at a time where the club are giving the impression that Brewster is favourite for the job, it looks like nothing but spin and an attempt to get some positive PR on his appointment. In short, if the club are annoyed (and we know they are) at the fans negative feelings towards Brewsters departure at this moment in time, they have nobody to blame for that but themselves. A lesson in the importance of communication with the fans.

IMO, there's absolutely no reason why every Season Ticket holder should not be a member of the Supporters Trust. The mere purchase of said Season Ticket should be sufficient, but by no means the exclusive method of joining. Only when the Supporters Trust removes all barriers from joining, and by that I mean the membership fee, will they approach being anything like fully representative. Anyone who does not wish to join at that stage can make no argument and can't expect to have a voice. Until that time I do not think that any Trust Representative sitting on the BoD can do so with hand on heart and say they are representing "The Fans".

Means it's the maids day off.

is it now time for the supporters trust to be pushing to gain a seat on the board of the football club? No - Until such time as the Trust itself is truly representative of the fans then I do not think it is the right move. should they now be approaching minor shareholders for their proxy? I think the Trust should always be looking to strengthen it's voice, but I believe their are far more important things it should be doing at present than chasing fans for their proxy. surely gathering all the smaller shareholdings (and hopefully some of the larger ones) together in order to have more of a say and facilitate gaining a board seat cannot be a bad thing? As well intentioned as the Trusts motives may be for having more of a say, until such time as they can unquestionably say they are speaking for the majority of fans in a democratic non-exclusive environment then it runs the danger of being accused of obtaining that voice to serve a small minority. Not a healthy proposition at present. the Trust already have the voting right previously held by the Members cluib. Not an ideal situation IMO, but far better than the previous setup and any alternatives. surely if the trust did this they could be well on the way to being able to influence decision-making within the club? As I have said above, I think this would be a positive. However, the time is not now, the Trust is not big enough or representative enough of the fans as a whole to acting as their "voice" - certainly not on any club Board. At this moment in time the Trust hold a 12% Voting right but it's membership can't boast the same level of fan membership (compared to Season Ticket Holders). I'm all for increasing the "power" of the Supporters Trust, but I think it would be wiser to concentrate just as much, if not more so, on increasing it's membership to become more representative.

Seems to be a wide ranging view on just how good or bad it would be for us to sign Brewster as Manager. As Polls seem to be the in thing right now, I thought one allowing people to post where about on the scale of 1-7 they sit would be interesting and informative. Voting at level 1 is showing you think he is the best option and their is nobody else you would rather have Voting at 7 is showing you think their are no other worse options out there. I've left it open for people to change their minds as they read and digest other people's arguments and opinions - please try and keep them constructive :029:

After reading some of the stuff on this forum, Brewster may not want to return.

Think I am also right in saying that even the sale of the shares which are still available still has to be approved by the Board. In short, if someone came in looking to buy a sizable chunk then the powers that be could easily block it. The only people who cannot be refused the right to purchase are existing shareholders.

No No No Yes - if you tell me what question you want asked. Don't know of a way to include all 3 in one poll on the forums.

Think you misunderstood Alex. Emoluments = Payment for holding an office or employment (i.e. Salary). It would not include expenses which are not subject to UK Income Tax such as travel, accommodation, wining and dining which is undertaken as part of the job.

You already can....when you are on the post/reply screen, scroll down and you'll get a list of previous posts with a "Insert quote" link in the top right corner of each.

Alex, expenses do not come under "Emoluments" and would be covered elsewhere on the accounts.

Listen dude, nobody has been more vocal on that front than me in the last couple of days and even I think your talking through a hole in your hat. Well that's a first. :rotflmao: Yeah, but I bet you knew it wouldn't last very long :015:

I have no objection to anyone at the club getting paid, be they a Director or not. I only mentioned the fact to dispel the myth that our Directors are all working for free, which is a line that has been trotted out on many occasions over the years. I shall be at the AGM, but I shall not be asking any questions regarding payment of Directors.

**Speechless**

The meeting wasn't what I expected it to be, it was much better. Their was an open exchange of views, honest answers to questions they could realistically answer and very few daft statements from the panel or the floor. The appeared to be taking on board what the fans were saying, both at the meeting and on here. I think the fact that the website came up so much tonight and that the panel seemed up to speed on comments of late should remove the myth that some people have about the club not reading these forums. I didn't get the feeling that this meeting was all a matter of paying lip service to the fans and their views, and although Grassa appeared to be plugging Brewster I think that was more a product of the questions which were coming from the floor than anything else. I don't think we are any wiser as to who the club will be employing, but on the same note I don't think the club know for certain at this time either, nor do I think they have a firm favourite despite some of the more cynical fans thinking it is a done deal for Brewster. We've had our say, the club have listened. All we can do now is sit back and put faith in them to appoint the best person available.

If not Warnock - and despite rumours to the contrary I am led to believe he is still strongly in the frame - then I would still want the club to seek a more experienced option than Brewster, Robbo, Coyle or any of the other names currently in the frame.

I'd vote for the soft option if I got to pick my boss as well.

No, I said mistakes have been made which need to be acknowledged by those responsible...or should Charlie be left to shoulder all the blame and made the scapegoat? Only then can they be put to rest and we can move forward a little wiser and less likely to see them repeated. Accountability has been an issue at ICT for a long time now and in many areas. Lets not forget that we still haven't had a proper response about the stewarding situation which occurred at the end of last season. Nobody has been properly held accountable and the people responsible were allowed to take up the reins and make similar mistakes at the first game of this season. Do you think that is a healthy way to run any business? We've lived too long on the excuse that everything has been going well on the pitch and ignored what's happening off it. In order for the club to truly progress everything needs to be working properly.

:rolleyes02:

I've been thinking about tonights meeting and the more I do, the more I think it is a genuine consultation. What benefit would it be to the club to ask the fans who (as far as this site has shown) are strongly backing Warnock, only to turn around and say..."well, we've already decided on Brewster". At a time when club PR is already at a low it would be a total own goal on their part to ask for our opinion and then ignore it. Have a little belief in yourself and your fellow fans and get down to the stadium and have your say.

IF the club are indeed going to listen to the fans then the shortlist makes perfect sense. Brewster - "The Devil We Know" Coyle - "A. N. Other relatively new, semi-successful and ambitious Manager" Warnock - "Experience"

Your right RiG, our style of football isn't that much different under CC than it was under Brew, that's why I'd prefer a manager with enough experience to know that playing the same game plan 38+ times in a season is eventually going to get you found out....which is exactly what is happening to us now.

Aye, perks of the job...admin/mods can surf without their ICT supporting bosses catching them as they too skive off to view the site :015:

I actually think it's Peles tough streak that is missing right now. He wouldn't be my first choice as replacement, but his willingness to crack heads wouldn't be among my reasons for voting elsewhere. This is the SPL, not nursery school and a few of our players could do with a firm dose of reality before things get much worse.