That's very negative devc. I wont vote anyone off. I'll vote positively for the people who I think will do the best job for the members of the Trust (including the running of the Football Club). At the end of the night, some people will not be on the Board. That's no shame on them, even if they have been on the Board a long time or a short time.
@wandering_jock Quite right. @DevC Not a case of voting anyone off. Members would vote for candidates, rather than against them: big difference. As W/Jock says - there will be three people left at the end of the democratic process who do not poll sufficient votes to be elected.
As for DR walking out in the summer.... resigning on principle upon an issue which is important to you is not exactly "walking out". He is standing for election now, I assume, on the issue over which he resigned. This, in my book, shows guts, determination and character - and that is to say nothing of the years of work he has put in for the benefit of the club in the past.
And he was the Chairman of the Trust before Trevor. He only stood down when he became a member of the WWFC Board. It was at one time the Board policy that the Chairman of the Trust should not be a Board member of the Football Club, to avoid a conflict of Interest. Times have changed
there are three places. three incumbents are standing. if you vote for someone not currently an incumbent, by definition you are voting for one of the existing incumbents to be voted off. I repeat which one?
DevC Voting is a positive move. You vote for those you think will do the best job. It has already been explained to you( see above). You don't vote against any candidate, only those you wish to see elected. Democracy then kicks in and the 3 candidates with the most votes get elected. Many voters will not use all three of their votes, can you understand their reasons, or will it have to be spelt out for you?
DevC having a pop at Mr Roberton for resigning, a bit hypocritical coming from someone whowould publicly do that on a number of occasions on the 'Old Gasroom' only to remerge a few days later.
I don't have a good feeling about situations where an individual resigns from an organisation and then get back in. I have seen it a few times in situations where I have been involved. It has never ended well. I have never met Roberton or the others standing to my knowledge, but for me he has some questions to answer re what he is now trying to achieve. Others may feel differently, that's fine by me.
It is reality that whether you vote is "positive" or not, if you vote in Roberton one of the others (at least) will by definition be voted off. I was wondering which you would prefer it to be. Maybe you don't much care which of course is your prerogative.
I fear the relative stability of the club may be challenged in the near future (I wonder if our manager may be tempted away to Yorkshire before too long). I hope those in power can keep it on a relatively stable and united path.
But given what is happening and may happen in the rest of the world, there are probably more important things to worry about. I think the election is a subject for others to discuss going forward.
The present incumbents seem to have done ok so I won't be voting for Mr Roberton. He had his opportunity and walked out without having the bottle to fight his cause.
"I don't have a good feeling about situations where an individual resigns from an organisation and then get back in. I have seen it a few times in situations where I have been involved. It has never ended well."
Perhaps you could share a few gems with the rest of us, that we might all be better advised. Or is this spurious?
"I have never met Roberton..."
This comment more or less disqualifies the quote above.
"..he has some questions to answer"
Agreed! But are you going to turn up at the AGM to ask them (the questions in question)? Or just continue to split hairs from the sidelines?
".. if you vote in Roberton one of the others (at least) will by definition be voted off. I was wondering which you would prefer it to be"
Irrelevant! Can't you understand that if one votes FOR a candidate then one does not, necessarily, care all that much as to the fate of someone for whom one does NOT vote?
Dev: do you have anything positive to say or are you just being deliberately obtuse? Nothing personal, I do assure you, but I just cannot understand why you are having such difficulty with this straightforward process.
"I don't have a good feeling about situations where an individual resigns from an organisation and then get back in. I have seen it a few times in situations where I have been involved. It has never ended well."
Like Ivor Beeks? And he,ll not have to face any election!
I can think of three seperate occasions where "going back" was disastrous - one a sports club where the two individuals largely running the show fell out. One left then came back. The ongoing conflict in the end caused the club to fold. Two an educational establishment where conflict on its management body caused by a returneedid not cause the establishment to die but meant a couple of decent people left before the matter could be resolved 3) third I would prefer the details to be kept secret.
Committees like human activities, work on trust between its members. When trust has broken down to such an extent that one member walks out in despair, it is clear emotions are running high. Person A feels passionately should go down one path the majority of the rest down another, path B. Almost invariably in my experience the committee is more effective when unanimously going down path B than when riven by conflict in a guerilla war trying to decide endlessly between A and B. that applies even when arguably path A is better than B.
I dont know personally the individuals - perhaps that makes me more objective in this case than those who do. For what it is worth, I favour continuity rather than conflict.
Whilst many of Dev's contributions I don't go along with, I do on this. In my opinion the Board are currently doing a very good job and surely if something aint broke don't fix it. To vote on Mr Roberton means unfairly voting off a current hard working and competant member.
@DevC Sounds like you've made your mind up about David Roberton's intentions - 'guerilla war' indeed.
It's telling that David and two other candidates are running on a platform of opening the trust up to more scrutiny and/or participation from those who are not active in the current WWT structure. I wonder why you aren't concentrating on discussing these points rather than you ad hominem attacks on David Roberton.
Just to reiterate: we are not being asked to "vote off" any of the three existing trust directors who are resigning on rotation (two of whom were never "voted on" in the first place).
We are simply being asked if we would like to vote FOR up to any three of the six candidates who are offering themselves for election.
We don't even have to do this if we do not wish. We may simply abstain or spoil our ballot papers, in protest, if we prefer.
As for "if something aint broke don't fix it" - well, DR seems to think something is (or was) broke. I expect he'll be given his opportunity to explain his position. If he makes a good enough case for this, and acquits himself well, then he might pick up enough votes, from members who share his concerns, to reclaim his place on the Trust Board.
If, in the event, DR returns to the Board and it should be that, let's say, one of the "co-opted" chaps loses his place then it will be because a greater number of members felt the need for the services of DR than for those of the unlucky loser.
When all is said and done we should not be concerned as to how unfair this is on someone who has worked hard for the past six months and has done nothing wrong. There are more important things at stake than that. We must responsibly consider what exactly is the best thing to do for the long term benefit of our football club - and then act accordingly.
An ad hominem attack is by definition "an attack directed against the person rather than the position they are maintaining."
I couldnt have made it clearer that I have never met Mr Roberton or the other candidates and that my concern is around my experience that committees in general work better when united than divided and it almost never works when an individual who has resigned on a matter of principle returns to the same structure unless significant change has occurred in the interim.
I wouldn't call that an attack full stop but if attack it is, it is by definition the very opposite of an "ad hominem" one. With respect if you are going to use fancy words, do take the trouble to first understand what they mean. Otherwise you just end up looking a bit of a prat.
I got the impression that there was a personal element of your posts decrying him. Just because someone resigned from something somewhere, came back on to the committee and guerilla war ensued is hardly attacking Roberton's position (last time I looked, that isn't what he has pledged to bring to the WWT board). @wandering_jock also made a good point about why this doesn't seem to apply to Mr. I.L. Beeks in your estimation, which also gives the impression that there is an element of denigrating the person rather than their position.
Also the attitude that you shouldn't vote for someone because they may hold differing opinions to present incumbents is quite frankly dangerous and recipe for apathy in the membership and unchecked and unaccountable power at the top.
Wrong impression. Never met the guy, might be a thoroughly nice chap or might be a complete arse for all I know.
All I have done is caution that in my experience a committee almost invariably performs worse when a guy who cares so passionately about an issue that has gone against him that he chooses to resign then returns to the committee, unless of course the relevant issue has changed or gone away.
For me the incumbents seem to be doing a decent job. For what it is worth my vote would be to retain the status quo.
I get your point about those who resign posts on principle. After all you have mentioned it three or four times on this thread.
I just wonder if you are forgetting the ones where the returning person had a positive impact as these happen just as often in my experience and are more easily forgotten. I've always believed in never going back but do accept every situation is different. I have found David Roberton to be a throughly decent man in my conversations with him over the years. I will listen, read, investigate and vote based on all of those.
Yeah I know I have had to repeat it several times, It would appear others didn't grasp the point previously - my bad drafting perhaps.
My experience is different to yours on returnees. As always individual experience conditions voting behaviour.
Not sure if I will vote or not. I will not be driving 400 miles to attend the meeting and tbh havent yet checked whether I can vote by proxy. Last year I didnt feel able to vote due to lack of information even though minded to support young DJ. Thanks to his posts on this thread and the distribution of campaign "pitches", I am more informed now on what and who i am voting for. If I can I will probably vote by proxy and if I do, I will vote for the three incumbents.
Make sure you check it out because it would be a pretty poor show if you didn't vote if you could. You obviously care enough to write the same prose in different ways on this thread so get your finger out and do it.
Personally I think the three votes for three out of six candidates is a flawed system and heavily weighted in favour of the current incumbants. Statistically giving each member one vote and choosing the top three from there seems much fairer. That debate is for another day though.
To be fair you are probably right if it is possible to do it by proxy. I will check it out this evening. (vaguely remember a form on the candidates pitches) email.
Dont really follow your logic re para 2 but I agree not a subject that I want to debate.
I'm probably wrong here, but didn't DR resign from the FC board having moved from the Trust board.
Now he's standing for election to the trust board. Doesn't that make the above arguments moot ?
Comments
And which of the guys currently doing the job (who didn't walk out in the summer) would you now vote off?
That's very negative devc. I wont vote anyone off. I'll vote positively for the people who I think will do the best job for the members of the Trust (including the running of the Football Club). At the end of the night, some people will not be on the Board. That's no shame on them, even if they have been on the Board a long time or a short time.
@wandering_jock Quite right.
@DevC Not a case of voting anyone off. Members would vote for candidates, rather than against them: big difference. As W/Jock says - there will be three people left at the end of the democratic process who do not poll sufficient votes to be elected.
As for DR walking out in the summer.... resigning on principle upon an issue which is important to you is not exactly "walking out". He is standing for election now, I assume, on the issue over which he resigned. This, in my book, shows guts, determination and character - and that is to say nothing of the years of work he has put in for the benefit of the club in the past.
And he was the Chairman of the Trust before Trevor. He only stood down when he became a member of the WWFC Board. It was at one time the Board policy that the Chairman of the Trust should not be a Board member of the Football Club, to avoid a conflict of Interest. Times have changed
there are three places. three incumbents are standing. if you vote for someone not currently an incumbent, by definition you are voting for one of the existing incumbents to be voted off. I repeat which one?
Stupid question; and repeat it as often as you like - explanation already given. Try re-reading what I have said and see if you can get it this time.
DevC Voting is a positive move. You vote for those you think will do the best job. It has already been explained to you( see above). You don't vote against any candidate, only those you wish to see elected. Democracy then kicks in and the 3 candidates with the most votes get elected. Many voters will not use all three of their votes, can you understand their reasons, or will it have to be spelt out for you?
DevC having a pop at Mr Roberton for resigning, a bit hypocritical coming from someone whowould publicly do that on a number of occasions on the 'Old Gasroom' only to remerge a few days later.
wow this is getting personal.
I don't have a good feeling about situations where an individual resigns from an organisation and then get back in. I have seen it a few times in situations where I have been involved. It has never ended well. I have never met Roberton or the others standing to my knowledge, but for me he has some questions to answer re what he is now trying to achieve. Others may feel differently, that's fine by me.
It is reality that whether you vote is "positive" or not, if you vote in Roberton one of the others (at least) will by definition be voted off. I was wondering which you would prefer it to be. Maybe you don't much care which of course is your prerogative.
I fear the relative stability of the club may be challenged in the near future (I wonder if our manager may be tempted away to Yorkshire before too long). I hope those in power can keep it on a relatively stable and united path.
But given what is happening and may happen in the rest of the world, there are probably more important things to worry about. I think the election is a subject for others to discuss going forward.
The present incumbents seem to have done ok so I won't be voting for Mr Roberton. He had his opportunity and walked out without having the bottle to fight his cause.
Quotes from DevC:-
"I don't have a good feeling about situations where an individual resigns from an organisation and then get back in. I have seen it a few times in situations where I have been involved. It has never ended well."
"I have never met Roberton..."
"..he has some questions to answer"
".. if you vote in Roberton one of the others (at least) will by definition be voted off. I was wondering which you would prefer it to be"
Dev: do you have anything positive to say or are you just being deliberately obtuse? Nothing personal, I do assure you, but I just cannot understand why you are having such difficulty with this straightforward process.
"I don't have a good feeling about situations where an individual resigns from an organisation and then get back in. I have seen it a few times in situations where I have been involved. It has never ended well."
Like Ivor Beeks? And he,ll not have to face any election!
Just to pick up Algernons point.
I can think of three seperate occasions where "going back" was disastrous - one a sports club where the two individuals largely running the show fell out. One left then came back. The ongoing conflict in the end caused the club to fold. Two an educational establishment where conflict on its management body caused by a returneedid not cause the establishment to die but meant a couple of decent people left before the matter could be resolved 3) third I would prefer the details to be kept secret.
Committees like human activities, work on trust between its members. When trust has broken down to such an extent that one member walks out in despair, it is clear emotions are running high. Person A feels passionately should go down one path the majority of the rest down another, path B. Almost invariably in my experience the committee is more effective when unanimously going down path B than when riven by conflict in a guerilla war trying to decide endlessly between A and B. that applies even when arguably path A is better than B.
I dont know personally the individuals - perhaps that makes me more objective in this case than those who do. For what it is worth, I favour continuity rather than conflict.
Whilst many of Dev's contributions I don't go along with, I do on this. In my opinion the Board are currently doing a very good job and surely if something aint broke don't fix it. To vote on Mr Roberton means unfairly voting off a current hard working and competant member.
@DevC Sounds like you've made your mind up about David Roberton's intentions - 'guerilla war' indeed.
It's telling that David and two other candidates are running on a platform of opening the trust up to more scrutiny and/or participation from those who are not active in the current WWT structure. I wonder why you aren't concentrating on discussing these points rather than you ad hominem attacks on David Roberton.
Just to reiterate: we are not being asked to "vote off" any of the three existing trust directors who are resigning on rotation (two of whom were never "voted on" in the first place).
We are simply being asked if we would like to vote FOR up to any three of the six candidates who are offering themselves for election.
We don't even have to do this if we do not wish. We may simply abstain or spoil our ballot papers, in protest, if we prefer.
As for "if something aint broke don't fix it" - well, DR seems to think something is (or was) broke. I expect he'll be given his opportunity to explain his position. If he makes a good enough case for this, and acquits himself well, then he might pick up enough votes, from members who share his concerns, to reclaim his place on the Trust Board.
If, in the event, DR returns to the Board and it should be that, let's say, one of the "co-opted" chaps loses his place then it will be because a greater number of members felt the need for the services of DR than for those of the unlucky loser.
When all is said and done we should not be concerned as to how unfair this is on someone who has worked hard for the past six months and has done nothing wrong. There are more important things at stake than that. We must responsibly consider what exactly is the best thing to do for the long term benefit of our football club - and then act accordingly.
Reading
An ad hominem attack is by definition "an attack directed against the person rather than the position they are maintaining."
I couldnt have made it clearer that I have never met Mr Roberton or the other candidates and that my concern is around my experience that committees in general work better when united than divided and it almost never works when an individual who has resigned on a matter of principle returns to the same structure unless significant change has occurred in the interim.
I wouldn't call that an attack full stop but if attack it is, it is by definition the very opposite of an "ad hominem" one. With respect if you are going to use fancy words, do take the trouble to first understand what they mean. Otherwise you just end up looking a bit of a prat.
I got the impression that there was a personal element of your posts decrying him. Just because someone resigned from something somewhere, came back on to the committee and guerilla war ensued is hardly attacking Roberton's position (last time I looked, that isn't what he has pledged to bring to the WWT board).
@wandering_jock also made a good point about why this doesn't seem to apply to Mr. I.L. Beeks in your estimation, which also gives the impression that there is an element of denigrating the person rather than their position.
Also the attitude that you shouldn't vote for someone because they may hold differing opinions to present incumbents is quite frankly dangerous and recipe for apathy in the membership and unchecked and unaccountable power at the top.
Wrong impression. Never met the guy, might be a thoroughly nice chap or might be a complete arse for all I know.
All I have done is caution that in my experience a committee almost invariably performs worse when a guy who cares so passionately about an issue that has gone against him that he chooses to resign then returns to the committee, unless of course the relevant issue has changed or gone away.
For me the incumbents seem to be doing a decent job. For what it is worth my vote would be to retain the status quo.
Are you voting @DevC?
I get your point about those who resign posts on principle. After all you have mentioned it three or four times on this thread.
I just wonder if you are forgetting the ones where the returning person had a positive impact as these happen just as often in my experience and are more easily forgotten. I've always believed in never going back but do accept every situation is different. I have found David Roberton to be a throughly decent man in my conversations with him over the years. I will listen, read, investigate and vote based on all of those.
Yeah I know I have had to repeat it several times, It would appear others didn't grasp the point previously - my bad drafting perhaps.
My experience is different to yours on returnees. As always individual experience conditions voting behaviour.
Not sure if I will vote or not. I will not be driving 400 miles to attend the meeting and tbh havent yet checked whether I can vote by proxy. Last year I didnt feel able to vote due to lack of information even though minded to support young DJ. Thanks to his posts on this thread and the distribution of campaign "pitches", I am more informed now on what and who i am voting for. If I can I will probably vote by proxy and if I do, I will vote for the three incumbents.
Make sure you check it out because it would be a pretty poor show if you didn't vote if you could. You obviously care enough to write the same prose in different ways on this thread so get your finger out and do it.
Personally I think the three votes for three out of six candidates is a flawed system and heavily weighted in favour of the current incumbants. Statistically giving each member one vote and choosing the top three from there seems much fairer. That debate is for another day though.
To be fair you are probably right if it is possible to do it by proxy. I will check it out this evening. (vaguely remember a form on the candidates pitches) email.
Dont really follow your logic re para 2 but I agree not a subject that I want to debate.
I'm probably wrong here, but didn't DR resign from the FC board having moved from the Trust board.
Now he's standing for election to the trust board. Doesn't that make the above arguments moot ?
Has anyone heard when the full Accounts for the Football Club are going to be issued.
Are they going to be sent to us prior to the AGM or do we get copies at Thursday's meeting ?