|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 25, 2015 9:42:34 GMT
Do they have to be independant of the board or the whole organisation ? Last time if I remember rightly it was Keith hall ? I would imagine it would be the same again ? I'm 95% sure that there should be an independent election committee of hust members appointed before the start of the election process chaired by somebody independent of HUST. I will check the hust election policy later and confirm. From the HUST Election Policy 3. Election control 3.1. In advance of the commencement of the election, the Society Board will appoint members of the Society (who with the exception of the Secretary may not include serving Society board members) to form the EMG. This group shall be chaired by an independent person who is not a member of the Society. The Secretary may be a member of this group. In the event that it is not possible to agree the identity of the Independent chair, Supporters Direct will select the Independent chair. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Aug 25, 2015 9:46:10 GMT
The HFC board members who are selected by the HFC 'Super-Share' shareholders select which HUST board members go on the HFC. If you're not wanted by the people who hold the power then you will not be selected. If your face doesn't fit then you won't be seen, and if you're singing from a different hymn sheet then your voice will not be heard. This is the problem with the whole set up. A disabling supporters trust and a selective community club. Sorry, I thought we were talking about the HUST board. The only guaranteed HUST director on the HFC board is the chairman of HUST. The rest of the positions would be decided by HUST, not HFC. Yes, they have a veto, but if they ever used it against someone chosen by HUST members to sit on the HFC board all hell would break loose. If nothing else, this last week has shown us that all hell can break loose without giving HFC a jot of concern. |
|
|
|
Post by porphyriticmegacryst on Aug 25, 2015 9:50:49 GMT
The title of this thread was "What does the future hold for HUST?" - simple answer = Whatever the fans who wish to be members deem it or make it to be. That is surely the point about HUST is that it is members that decide - assuming they can be bothered.....
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 10:50:01 GMT
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. The HUST board should have 5-9 directors. So the "people in charge" would have no choice but to engage in open dialogue if four or five " militants " were to put themselves forward. Not an ideal situation of course, but it would mean that the 5 new members would be in a position to not only keep an eye on the "people in charge" but also be in a position to influence policy. The HFC board members (who are themselves selected by the HFC 'Super-Share' shareholders) select which HUST board members go on the HFC board as representatives of HUST. If you're not wanted by the people who hold the power then you will not be selected. If your face doesn't fit then you won't be seen, and if you're singing from a different hymn sheet then your voice will not be heard. This is the problem with the whole set up. A disabling supporters trust and a selective community club. However, if that is true then they are still there as representatives of the HUST board and the HUST members. If their actions and conduct in their HFC roles were believed to be falling short of that required by the HUST board and its members then the HUST board can vote to remove their mandate to represent the organisation. They would then have to be removed from the board as you can't sit in a HUST seat without the backing of HUST. New candidates would then have to be put forward from within the HUST board and membership. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 11:05:54 GMT
The HFC board members (who are themselves selected by the HFC 'Super-Share' shareholders) select which HUST board members go on the HFC board as representatives of HUST. If you're not wanted by the people who hold the power then you will not be selected. If your face doesn't fit then you won't be seen, and if you're singing from a different hymn sheet then your voice will not be heard. This is the problem with the whole set up. A disabling supporters trust and a selective community club. However, if that is true then they are still there as representatives of the HUST board and the HUST members. If their actions and conduct in their HFC roles were believed to be falling short of that required by the HUST board and its members then the HUST board can vote to remove their mandate to represent the organisation. They would then have to be removed from the board as you can't sit in a HUST seat without the backing of HUST. New candidates would then have to be put forward from within the HUST board and membership. Yes, I imagine that is very true. Although, I'm not sure how you would go about mobilising the fans against a HUST board member without being able to use the HUST social media or the most prominent unofficial HFC news websites. IMO, it would have to be some seriously big negative news in the local media to ever see HUST members remove a HUST board member. Perhaps we'll find out if Parka ever returns. |
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Aug 25, 2015 14:14:54 GMT
Maybe but you can use internet forums, social media and word of mouth to gather support - as can those you oppose - with a view to getting people to vote your way at the AGM
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 16:46:37 GMT
I'd vote for Grayham or anyone else willing to put themselves up for election to the board of HUST. It'd be great if we had a selection of people with widely differing views, and hopefully would stir the pot a bit.
By not standing, or even rejoining, all you do is leave HUST as the lame duck that it would appear that the HFC board want it to be. We need to make HUST representative of the voices of supporters than ever before or we may as well forget ever having a say in our football club ever again (other than getting to vote on the selection of a kit that we'll wear six times a season)
I'm still considering standing myself, but would happily nominate any of you guys if you wished to stand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 16:56:08 GMT
I'd vote for Grayham or anyone else willing to put themselves up for election to the board of HUST. It'd be great if we had a selection of people with widely differing views, and hopefully would stir the pot a bit. By not standing, or even rejoining, all you do is leave HUST as the lame duck that it would appear that the HFC board want it to be. We need to make HUST representative of the voices of supporters than ever before or we may as well forget ever having a say in our football club ever again (other than getting to vote on the selection of a kit that we'll wear six times a season) I'm still considering standing myself, but would happily nominate any of you guys if you wished to stand. I don't really see the point in voting for grayham as it takes him 6 months to understand what is going on. I don't mean that as purely an insult to him, it's just I see little point in voting for someone who is likely to just agree with everything until it's too late. Sadly, a bit like Barney. Having said that, if you, Barney, Som and a couple of other sensible people (fence sitter Jonny, perhaps?) were on the board then I'd consider supporting HUST. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 19:19:27 GMT
I'd vote for Grayham or anyone else willing to put themselves up for election to the board of HUST. It'd be great if we had a selection of people with widely differing views, and hopefully would stir the pot a bit. By not standing, or even rejoining, all you do is leave HUST as the lame duck that it would appear that the HFC board want it to be. We need to make HUST representative of the voices of supporters than ever before or we may as well forget ever having a say in our football club ever again (other than getting to vote on the selection of a kit that we'll wear six times a season) I'm still considering standing myself, but would happily nominate any of you guys if you wished to stand. I don't really see the point in voting for grayham as it takes him 6 months to understand what is going on. I don't mean that as purely an insult to him, it's just I see little point in voting for someone who is likely to just agree with everything until it's too late. Sadly, a bit like Barney. Having said that, if you, Barney, Som and a couple of other sensible people (fence sitter Jonny, perhaps?) were on the board then I'd consider supporting HUST. Tobefairlike, Barney did a stint already and was one of the many who recently stepped down, feeling unable to continue under present circumstances. I appreciate the leap of logic that sees me being described as sensible (perhaps, at any rate). I just don't have the time or the energy - I have two young children who don't see me as much as I'd like as it is, a demanding job and more extra curricular activity than I can reasonably cope with already, including studying for a serious accountancy qualification, coaching an under 8s football team and, just recently, I've started a book*. The missus would kill me and I don't think I'd enjoy my all too rare trips to Edgar Street as much as an "insider" so to speak. Given the cloud under which several HUST board members recently stepped down - good people all - I can't help but see it as a truly thankless task at the present time. Besides, my preference for anonymity would mean that I would either have to attend meetings incognito, perhaps sitting behind a screen inhaling helium to disguise my voice (and doubtless subtracting credibility from whatever I had to say) or I could run under my real name, meaning that almost nobody from the forum would know who I was, but would, nevertheless be nodding sagely along to every word uttered by the unknown, handsome stranger with a lot of sensible things to say, and wondering why he insisted on doing so while sitting on a six ft by six ft fence panel. * Jack Reacher 36 - "Death B@st@rd" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 19:30:45 GMT
Haha. I thought it was only fair that I made you tell us all why you won't be putting your name forward!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 8:59:49 GMT
It really does worry me how many people seem happy to let their membership lapse and allow HUST to gently slip into a coma, despite so many wanting the supporters to be in control of the football club. After all the passion that has been displayed over the last 18 months or so, it's so frustrating to see people just resigned to the fact that we're back in the position of businessmen running our football club, rather than making a stand and insisting on the supporters having more input.
Those running the club might want HUST to slip quietly into the background, but that doesn't mean we should allow that to happen. It's OUR supporters trust, and we should make it the vehicle that we were led to believe it was to be, before it's too late
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 9:21:30 GMT
. My arguments against others that weren't happy was that they did nothing about it, eg, suggesting an alternative. And there were those who had no interest in a new club but only wanted to undermine Hale and HUST. Even when people were trying to organise an alternative all you did is lead the witch hunt against them with your 'dissenters' vs 'saviours' attitude and abuse. You're an idiot. A complete numbskull. |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 9:30:30 GMT
It really does worry me how many people seem happy to let their membership lapse and allow HUST to gently slip into a coma, despite so many wanting the supporters to be in control of the football club. After all the passion that has been displayed over the last 18 months or so, it's so frustrating to see people just resigned to the fact that we're back in the position of businessmen running our football club, rather than making a stand and insisting on the supporters having more input. Those running the club might want HUST to slip quietly into the background, but that doesn't mean we should allow that to happen. It's OUR supporters trust, and we should make it the vehicle that we were led to believe it was to be, before it's too late The constitution of HUST has to change. I haven't seen much said about that yet. I don't think it's on the agenda for the AGM, and from the constitution it's too late to propose changes. So why don't people who want a strong HUST come up with a list of the changes needed. i posted this list on BB a week or two ago in response to a similar request from wayforward. wayforward never replied and now the forum has been munsleyed.... but essentially - the AGM is not the place to fine tune the constitution. what we need at the AGM is agreement that constitution needs changing and then the appointment of a group of HUST members indepedent of the board to review the constituion and suggest changes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 9:58:36 GMT
I'm hearing murmurings that positions on the board are planned to be filled by the usual yes men/women that pandered to the previous owners of HUFC for years on end. If that happens then the supporters will well and truly lose our voice. We can't let that happen. Hell, I'd even propose Ex for a position on the board ahead of that happening as, believe it or not, I think it'd be less harmful to the club than HUST ending up in the position of being meaningless
|
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 10:05:44 GMT
I'm hearing murmurings that positions on the board are planned to be filled by the usual yes men/women that pandered to the previous owners of HUFC for years on end. If that happens then the supporters will well and truly lose our voice. We can't let that happen. Hell, I'd even propose Ex for a position on the board ahead of that happening as, believe it or not, I think it'd be less harmful to the club than HUST ending up in the position of being meaningless Members need to insist that hust follows its election policy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 10:08:38 GMT
Also, I've been desperately trying to find anything that references the words of Kevin Rye at the first open meeting (the one where resolution was passed to form HUST), but information about anything that was said on that night seems impossible to come across. Bulls News is suitably vague on the subject.
My reason for wanting to find this is because I remember Kevin Rye speaking passionately about how forming a supporters trust would give us the opportunity to push and push and push to gain as much control of our football club as possible, and how by backing the trust (at the time, being set up by the steering group that comprised of George Webb, Jon Hale, Will Hale, Matthew Taylor, Martin Watson, Ron Parrot) we would put ourselves in a great position to do just that.
I was hoping to find exact quotes and to see if the Hales, Martin Watson and/or George Webb had supported the view that this is something we ought to work towards because, to be frank, they're doing completely the opposite to what we were led to believe we were voting for last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Aug 26, 2015 10:13:26 GMT
I'm hearing murmurings that positions on the board are planned to be filled by the usual yes men/women that pandered to the previous owners of HUFC for years on end. If that happens then the supporters will well and truly lose our voice. We can't let that happen. Hell, I'd even propose Ex for a position on the board ahead of that happening as, believe it or not, I think it'd be less harmful to the club than HUST ending up in the position of being meaningless Yeah, I've heard those rumours too. It beggars belief that they might be seeking out prospective board members simply for their perceived acquiescence. Maybe 'Wayforward' or 'Muno' could comment on this? Have they registered yet? Can I suggest that before we give up on HUST we at least all make a concerted effort to turn up in numbers at the AGM and hold the remaining HUST board members to account? |
|
|
|
Post by bullish on Aug 26, 2015 10:18:35 GMT
Also, I've been desperately trying to find anything that references the words of Kevin Rye at the first open meeting (the one where resolution was passed to form HUST), but information about anything that was said on that night seems impossible to come across. Bulls News is suitably vague on the subject. My reason for wanting to find this is because I remember Kevin Rye speaking passionately about how forming a supporters trust would give us the opportunity to push and push and push to gain as much control of our football club as possible, and how by backing the trust (at the time, being set up by the steering group that comprised of George Webb, Jon Hale, Will Hale, Matthew Taylor, Martin Watson, Ron Parrot) we would put ourselves in a great position to do just that. I was hoping to find exact quotes and to see if the Hales, Martin Watson and/or George Webb had supported the view that this is something we ought to work towards because, to be frank, they're doing completely the opposite to what we were led to believe we were voting for last night. Mr Rye promised us a 'particularly pure form of demcoracy' as i recall. |
|
|
|
Post by Villier on Aug 26, 2015 10:19:44 GMT
Also, I've been desperately trying to find anything that references the words of Kevin Rye at the first open meeting (the one where resolution was passed to form HUST), but information about anything that was said on that night seems impossible to come across. Bulls News is suitably vague on the subject. My reason for wanting to find this is because I remember Kevin Rye speaking passionately about how forming a supporters trust would give us the opportunity to push and push and push to gain as much control of our football club as possible, and how by backing the trust (at the time, being set up by the steering group that comprised of George Webb, Jon Hale, Will Hale, Matthew Taylor, Martin Watson, Ron Parrot) we would put ourselves in a great position to do just that. I was hoping to find exact quotes and to see if the Hales, Martin Watson and/or George Webb had supported the view that this is something we ought to work towards because, to be frank, they're doing completely the opposite to what we were led to believe we were voting for last night. I guess they did support that view. They've certainly managed it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Aug 26, 2015 10:21:28 GMT
Also, I've been desperately trying to find anything that references the words of Kevin Rye at the first open meeting (the one where resolution was passed to form HUST), but information about anything that was said on that night seems impossible to come across. Bulls News is suitably vague on the subject. My reason for wanting to find this is because I remember Kevin Rye speaking passionately about how forming a supporters trust would give us the opportunity to push and push and push to gain as much control of our football club as possible, and how by backing the trust (at the time, being set up by the steering group that comprised of George Webb, Jon Hale, Will Hale, Matthew Taylor, Martin Watson, Ron Parrot) we would put ourselves in a great position to do just that. I was hoping to find exact quotes and to see if the Hales, Martin Watson and/or George Webb had supported the view that this is something we ought to work towards because, to be frank, they're doing completely the opposite to what we were led to believe we were voting for last night. Off topic but here's a good interview with Kevin Rye. quandogliscarpinieranoneri.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/fighting-for-the-good-of-the-game/Interestingly he says he is most proud of his contribution to the Merthyr phoenix club, as their situation seemed insurmountable. No mention of us unfortunately. |
|
