NUSC Suggestion Thread

[ewerk 26501]

Thinking of standing CT?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Thinking of standing CT?

 

And get abused on forums by people who are too lazy to get off their own arse and do something about it.......

 

Not a fucking chance!

[timnufc 0]

Just to remind NUSC members the forum is now open and there is some good discussions ongoing about protests or lack of them and the change in direction taken by the interim committee.

 

In particular there has just being one excellent post (unfair to copy and paste from a members only forum to a public forum, before anyone asks.)

 

Anyone who is a member, pop in.

 

Got a link to the forum? Cant find it.

[JawD 31]

Just to remind NUSC members the forum is now open and there is some good discussions ongoing about protests or lack of them and the change in direction taken by the interim committee.

 

In particular there has just being one excellent post (unfair to copy and paste from a members only forum to a public forum, before anyone asks.)

 

Anyone who is a member, pop in.

 

Got a link to the forum? Cant find it.

 

http://www.nust.org.uk/forum

[Tom_NUFC 0]

And too be fair Pud I have had a reply from Two committee members. One says this year another says next year. Apparrently a meeting MAY take place next week where elections MAY be discussed.

 

Early on next year.

 

Of course, when we first formed as NUSC we said the Interim Committee would be in place until June 2009. Since then of course we moved down the route of converting to a trust (which was approved by the vast majority of members). In doing so, of course we've been talking to and taking advice from Supporters Direct.

They said that with us changing to Trust status over the summer, the June elections would have to be put back. Once the Trust was in place, they then said there would be a bedding in period (which is where we are at right now) lasting a few months. The timeline that they drew up takes us into the new year, around January/February, before elections would be held. Supporters Direct will assist us in this process to ensure that they meet all of their criteria and rules.

 

 

What I would say is that although the conversion to the Trust has put the elections back, it also guarantees them. Under the rules drawn up by Supporters Direct, Trusts MUST hold elections.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

And too be fair Pud I have had a reply from Two committee members. One says this year another says next year. Apparrently a meeting MAY take place next week where elections MAY be discussed.

 

Early on next year.

 

Of course, when we first formed as NUSC we said the Interim Committee would be in place until June 2009. Since then of course we moved down the route of converting to a trust (which was approved by the vast majority of members). In doing so, of course we've been talking to and taking advice from Supporters Direct.

They said that with us changing to Trust status over the summer, the June elections would have to be put back. Once the Trust was in place, they then said there would be a bedding in period (which is where we are at right now) lasting a few months. The timeline that they drew up takes us into the new year, around January/February, before elections would be held. Supporters Direct will assist us in this process to ensure that they meet all of their criteria and rules.

 

 

What I would say is that although the conversion to the Trust has put the elections back, it also guarantees them. Under the rules drawn up by Supporters Direct, Trusts MUST hold elections.

 

 

It would be nice if a someone from NUSC / NUST would advise how many of the 2000+ members voted to change to a trust. I have asked on several occasions but to date have not had a reply.

 

Unsure how a seperate body can force NUSC to change its election policy.

 

Could election plans not have been put in place whilst all this was going on?

 

I have a fear that NUSC has gone down a path that unfortunately will have alienated a lot of its members however this will not become apparent until they are either asked to vote or to re-new their membership.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Christmas Tree

[Kitman 2188]

And too be fair Pud I have had a reply from Two committee members. One says this year another says next year. Apparrently a meeting MAY take place next week where elections MAY be discussed.

 

Early on next year.

 

Of course, when we first formed as NUSC we said the Interim Committee would be in place until June 2009. Since then of course we moved down the route of converting to a trust (which was approved by the vast majority of members). In doing so, of course we've been talking to and taking advice from Supporters Direct.

They said that with us changing to Trust status over the summer, the June elections would have to be put back. Once the Trust was in place, they then said there would be a bedding in period (which is where we are at right now) lasting a few months. The timeline that they drew up takes us into the new year, around January/February, before elections would be held. Supporters Direct will assist us in this process to ensure that they meet all of their criteria and rules.

 

 

What I would say is that although the conversion to the Trust has put the elections back, it also guarantees them. Under the rules drawn up by Supporters Direct, Trusts MUST hold elections.

 

 

It would be nice if a someone from NUSC / NUST would advise how many of the 2000+ members voted to change to a trust. I have asked on several occasions but to date have not had a reply.

 

Unsure how a seperate body can force NUSC to change its election policy.

 

Could election plans not have been put in place whilst all this was going on?

 

I have a fear that NUSC has gone down a path that unfortunately will have alienated a lot of its members however this will not become apparent until they are either asked to vote or to re-new their membership.

 

You worry too much

[peasepud 59]

And too be fair Pud I have had a reply from Two committee members. One says this year another says next year. Apparrently a meeting MAY take place next week where elections MAY be discussed.

 

Early on next year.

 

Of course, when we first formed as NUSC we said the Interim Committee would be in place until June 2009. Since then of course we moved down the route of converting to a trust (which was approved by the vast majority of members). In doing so, of course we've been talking to and taking advice from Supporters Direct.

They said that with us changing to Trust status over the summer, the June elections would have to be put back. Once the Trust was in place, they then said there would be a bedding in period (which is where we are at right now) lasting a few months. The timeline that they drew up takes us into the new year, around January/February, before elections would be held. Supporters Direct will assist us in this process to ensure that they meet all of their criteria and rules.

 

 

What I would say is that although the conversion to the Trust has put the elections back, it also guarantees them. Under the rules drawn up by Supporters Direct, Trusts MUST hold elections.

 

 

It would be nice if a someone from NUSC / NUST would advise how many of the 2000+ members voted to change to a trust. I have asked on several occasions but to date have not had a reply.

Unsure how a seperate body can force NUSC to change its election policy.

 

Could election plans not have been put in place whilst all this was going on?

 

I have a fear that NUSC has gone down a path that unfortunately will have alienated a lot of its members however this will not become apparent until they are either asked to vote or to re-new their membership.

 

You are unsure how the legitimate government backed body that draws up the rules and guidelines for a Supporters Trust can have any influence on the elections? How the organisation that wrote the rules can decide what is done?

 

Give yasel a shake lad, when you convert to a trust you follow their rules and their guidance. Quite rightly, they have seen these things grow from the very first one into what they are today so they are the experts in this.

 

What would be the use of making the move and carrying out 50% of the hard work involved in a Trust conversion and then replacing half of the people involved with totally new people before everything else is completed? What is gained by doing that when you'd either have to spend the next 6 months working alongside the new people ensuring everything was done or would walk away letting them make the mistakes that you've already been through, identified and the like.

 

The whole reason SD give this timeline is to ensure the best chance possible of the Trust establishing itself. It would be madness to do half a job and then forcibly replace those working on it because you decide to have an election 2 weeks after receiving the confirmation of gaining Trust status.

 

At the same time it would me mental to have elections at that time because frankly it would be amazing if anyone other than the current board got elected and that in itself wouldnt be fair. 99.8% of the votes received were in favour of the conversion, if you hold a vote that almost everyone agrees with, then go out and obtain that hugely important (and frankly quite hard to get) postion (in this case Supporters Trust status) then the members are (quite rightly) going to be swayed in your favour by that. What would be gained? you'd have disrupted the work that follows the Trust conversion simply to ratify the same people for the next x years.

 

By giving it a bit time to bed in, members can get used to what exactly a Trust is, can get used to what it means and can see what those currently running it are actually like at doing the job because thats going to be a hell of a lot different to setting it up. Potential candidates then have time to identify what they would do differently, what they see as problems in the current setup and can work on their own ideas and thoughts. Come election time they are in a much better position to put forward their own manifesto and become elected.

 

In seriousness, do you honestly believe that if we'd have had elections 3 months ago the comittee would look any different to what it does now? I dont.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

And still no one answers how many of 2000 plus people voted to convert to a trust.

[Ketsbaia 0]

And still no one answers how many of 2000 plus people voted to convert to a trust.

 

I think the exact figure is irrelevant in this particular case. It's not as if it was a contentious issue. There are a tonne of pros and virtually no cons.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

And still no one answers how many of 2000 plus people voted to convert to a trust.

 

I think the exact figure is irrelevant in this particular case. It's not as if it was a contentious issue. There are a tonne of pros and virtually no cons.

 

 

Its funny but if you go back to page 1 of this thread we were asking NUSC to become a bit more professional and become more of a supporters club rather than a one issue protest group.

 

However I and others feel that the fight has totally gone and we are left with this obsession about pension plans and one day buying the club. Not only do some feel as with most big clubs, this will never happen, but also there are bigger fish to fry at this moment in time, namely Ashley.

 

While he is dithering at the moment about selling, all guns should be firing in his direction. The Guns of NUSC are silent......

 

Too busy fannying on with this "YES YOU CAN" campaign.

 

Therefore, it is a legitimate question in a democratic paid up organisation to ask....

 

How many of the 2000 plus, paid up members, voted to change to a trust.

[Ketsbaia 0]

And still no one answers how many of 2000 plus people voted to convert to a trust.

 

I think the exact figure is irrelevant in this particular case. It's not as if it was a contentious issue. There are a tonne of pros and virtually no cons.

 

 

Its funny but if you go back to page 1 of this thread we were asking NUSC to become a bit more professional and become more of a supporters club rather than a one issue protest group.

 

However I and others feel that the fight has totally gone and we are left with this obsession about pension plans and one day buying the club. Not only do some feel as with most big clubs, this will never happen, but also there are bigger fish to fry at this moment in time, namely Ashley.

 

While he is dithering at the moment about selling, all guns should be firing in his direction. The Guns of NUSC are silent......

 

Too busy fannying on with this "YES YOU CAN" campaign.

 

Therefore, it is a legitimate question in a democratic paid up organisation to ask....

 

How many of the 2000 plus, paid up members, voted to change to a trust.

 

All guns were firing in his direction and people got their knickers in a twist about it. Now they're going about things a bit more low key and they're getting nailed because they're not being aggressive enough. They can't win really.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

A taste of things to come Peaspud

[Guest alex]

Were you given the opportunity to vote on the change in status? Because that's all each individual member needs to worry about. If you were and didn't you can't say anything. If you weren't, then it's an issue, but it's only a major issue if you opposed the change. If you voted yes, I fail to see what you're on about. Which, if any, of these categories do you fall into CT?

Edited October 9, 2009 by alex

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Were you given the opportunity to vote on the change in status? Because that's all each individual member needs to worry about. If you were and didn't you can't say anything. If you weren't, then it's an issue, but it's only a major issue if you opposed the change. If you voted yes, I fail to see what you're on about. Which, if any, of these categories do you fall into CT?

 

 

Cant discuss that with a non member

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Were you given the opportunity to vote on the change in status? Because that's all each individual member needs to worry about. If you were and didn't you can't say anything. If you weren't, then it's an issue, but it's only a major issue if you opposed the change. If you voted yes, I fail to see what you're on about. Which, if any, of these categories do you fall into CT?

 

 

Seriously i cant remember, however i feel at the time we were being asked to change from Ray Stubbs to Steve Ryder and someone we've ended up with David Ike.

 

Its still not the end of the world making the actual figures public.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Christmas Tree

[Guest alex]

Were you given the opportunity to vote on the change in status? Because that's all each individual member needs to worry about. If you were and didn't you can't say anything. If you weren't, then it's an issue, but it's only a major issue if you opposed the change. If you voted yes, I fail to see what you're on about. Which, if any, of these categories do you fall into CT?

 

 

Seriously i cant remember, however i feel at the time we were being asked to change from Ray Stubbs to Steve Ryder and someone we've ended up with David Ike.

 

Its still not the end of the world making the actual figures public.

If you can't even remember I fail to see how you can kick up a fuss about how it was done. You obviously didn't care enough about it at the time.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Were you given the opportunity to vote on the change in status? Because that's all each individual member needs to worry about. If you were and didn't you can't say anything. If you weren't, then it's an issue, but it's only a major issue if you opposed the change. If you voted yes, I fail to see what you're on about. Which, if any, of these categories do you fall into CT?

 

 

Seriously i cant remember, however i feel at the time we were being asked to change from Ray Stubbs to Steve Ryder and someone we've ended up with David Ike.

 

Its still not the end of the world making the actual figures public.

If you can't even remember I fail to see how you can kick up a fuss about how it was done. You obviously didn't care enough about it at the time.

 

seems like no-one at nusc / nust can remember how many voted yes either.

[peasepud 59]

I'll go find you the answer but i have to say I'm not comfortable with what you're implying here at all.

 

If you think there's something amiss then I'd recommend taking it straight to therelevant authorities so we can ensure the truth gets properly reported back.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I'll go find you the answer but i have to say I'm not comfortable with what you're implying here at all.

 

If you think there's something amiss then I'd recommend taking it straight to therelevant authorities so we can ensure the truth gets properly reported back.

 

 

Personally I think you have your knickers in a twist. Apart from one jokey comment I have simply asked one very basic question. Other people have chosen to discuss the ins and outs of it.

 

I have implied nothing.

 

My views that I think NUST have become obsessed with this pension / buy the club campaign are clear. I am also dissapointed that more is not being done to encourage Ashley to leave.

 

It seems to me therefore straightforward to as how many of the 2000 plus voted to go down this road. If it was 1001 then that is fine. If it was based on a show of 50 hands at a roadshow then that's a different matter.

 

You are quite aware that others are raisining similar concerns.

 

It would be a shame for the interim committee to ignore these issue as they may end up with a very poor response when renewal fees are requested.

[Kitman 2188]

I think all this goes to show is that some people like to criticise for the sake of it. It's actually quite a British trait that the minute somebody tries to do something a bit different, a legion of petty minded individuals come out of the woodwork and try to fillibuster it to death because some aspect of it doesn't chime with their mindset.

 

imo you will never ever do something that 100% of all supporters agree with. Just get on with it is what I say and see where it ends. If I don't take part, or put my money and my vote in, I can hardly complain about the direction this goes in, can I?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I think all this goes to show is that some people like to criticise for the sake of it. It's actually quite a British trait that the minute somebody tries to do something a bit different, a legion of petty minded individuals come out of the woodwork and try to fillibuster it to death because some aspect of it doesn't chime with their mindset.

 

imo you will never ever do something that 100% of all supporters agree with. Just get on with it is what I say and see where it ends. If I don't take part, or put my money and my vote in, I can hardly complain about the direction this goes in, can I?

 

 

Quite simply the biggest load of tosh I've yet to see from your keyboard tbh.

[acrossthepond 707]

I think all this goes to show is that some people like to criticise for the sake of it. It's actually quite a British trait that the minute somebody tries to do something a bit different, a legion of petty minded individuals come out of the woodwork and try to fillibuster it to death because some aspect of it doesn't chime with their mindset.

 

imo you will never ever do something that 100% of all supporters agree with. Just get on with it is what I say and see where it ends. If I don't take part, or put my money and my vote in, I can hardly complain about the direction this goes in, can I?

 

 

Quite simply the biggest load of tosh I've yet to see from your keyboard tbh.

 

I'd tell you the same thing but I'd have to keep repeating it every time you posted. You want to have a word after some of the absolute shite you've spewed out in this thread. You evade every direct question, shrink back when called out on one of your fairly blatant implications, and in general look like the sort of bloke who'll make a snide comment and a nasty remark but can't stand behind the convictions of his beliefs.

 

If you think the Interim Committee are some sort of junta taking NUSC/NUST in a direction you don't want it to go and that you don't think the rest of your fellow members want it to go, then out with it. But FFS don't fanny about like this.

[snakehips 0]

I think Rob W needs to tell CT what happened, and who went missing, following the October Revolution in 1917, and what Stalin did to folk like CT following his rise to power.

 

The enemy within

[Kitman 2188]

I think all this goes to show is that some people like to criticise for the sake of it. It's actually quite a British trait that the minute somebody tries to do something a bit different, a legion of petty minded individuals come out of the woodwork and try to fillibuster it to death because some aspect of it doesn't chime with their mindset.

 

imo you will never ever do something that 100% of all supporters agree with. Just get on with it is what I say and see where it ends. If I don't take part, or put my money and my vote in, I can hardly complain about the direction this goes in, can I?

 

 

Quite simply the biggest load of tosh I've yet to see from your keyboard tbh.

 

Well I wasn't planning to personalise this. But really, you haven't said a lot in God knows how many posts, and it comes across as petty minded sniping imo. If you got some charge of substance to levy against NUSC, you should come out with it, or cut the crap