Trust.. The on going debate

[rudemedic]

How many mistake have you made here ??????

 

Confused or not a Oldham Supporter really ??

 

Why did I suspect my response was going to get a reply from the chief communications director of the stonecutters (oh there I go again its the trust).

 

Having actually looked it up, I got my figures wrong, the figure was £200k, still time will tell how that money could be useful from now, instead of having the voice on the board (what exactly has that done for us- apart from the occassional rant telling us we aren't loyal supporters).

 

And its Mike Newton, not Ian. The rest hasn't been proved either way, except I am an Oldham supporter.

 

BTW if you don't pass the fit and proper persons test you CAN'T be a director of a club, whether Mr. Owen will pass that if we go into administration is another matter.

[wardlelatic]

Why did I suspect my response was going to get a reply from the chief communications director of the stonecutters (oh there I go again its the trust).

 

Having actually looked it up, I got my figures wrong, the figure was £200k, still time will tell how that money could be useful from now, instead of having the voice on the board (what exactly has that done for us- apart from the occassional rant telling us we aren't loyal supporters).

 

And its Mike Newton, not Ian. The rest hasn't been proved either way, except I am an Oldham supporter.

 

BTW if you don't pass the fit and proper persons test you CAN'T be a director of a club, whether Mr. Owen will pass that if we go into administration is another matter.

 

 

Im not biting on any insults, I was merely showing the mistakes of your message

 

Your figures and info was wrong, most people know the name of the Director who left a few weeks ago...

 

Again you will find that you can become a director of a club if you go into admin. The ruling is

unable to be a director of a club which, while he has been a director of it, has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency

 

Risdale

Bates....

[rudemedic]

Im not biting on any insults, I was merely showing the mistakes of your message

 

Your figures and info was wrong, most people know the name of the Director who left a few weeks ago...

 

Again you will find that you can become a director of a club if you go into admin. The ruling is

 

Risdale

Bates....

 

That's what the ruling IS, the same rule is likely to be changed (see Pompey) if its the case that Oldham go into admin and ruling hasn't changed then Mr. Owen may not have anything to worry about (apart from legitimate calls to wonder why the trust didn't save for a rainy day).

 

I don't know if I will be the only one pointing fingers at the trust board if the club goes into administration but I hope not.

 

If you think being called a mason, stonecutter etc. is an insult, then maybe the trust should have held proper democratic elections then? As oppose to telling this board that Barry Owen is the only person qualified for that position (I think he will be very low down on the list of qualified people if Corney follows the path of Gazal and Blitz).

Edited July 6, 2010 by rudemedic

[wardlelatic]

That's what the ruling IS, the same rule is likely to be changed (see Pompey) if its the case that Oldham go into admin and ruling hasn't changed then Mr. Owen may not have anything to worry about (apart from legitimate calls to wonder why the trust didn't save for a rainy day).

 

I don't know if I will be the only one pointing fingers at the trust board if the club goes into administration but I hope not.

 

If you think being called a mason, stonecutter etc. is an insult, then maybe the trust should have held proper democratic elections then? As oppose to telling this board that Barry Owen is the only person qualified for that position (I think he will be very low down on the list of qualified people if Corney follows the path of Gazal and Blitz).

 

 

You made a statement of fact that today you cant become a director if you have been involved in an administration now you are saying it maybe a new ruling that will come into force if the FA sort themsleves out !!

 

You implied your comment in a derogatory manner, so yes I did find it insulting. As for Democratic... Yes the Trust is.. rule of the people = Democratic, a due process used to elect the chair by elected persons.

 

As for this comment

As oppose to telling this board that Barry Owen is the only person qualified for that position

I have never said that. Many are qualified but no one else as come forward expressed an interest and asked to take the role on!

 

 

Now lets keep this BOT.

 

Blitz stands down.....

[leeslover]

As for Democratic... Yes the Trust is.. rule of the people = Democratic, a due process used to elect the chair by elected persons.

If you want to maintain one single shred of credibility either as a Trust Director, Latics fan or, God help us, the owner of the impartial Fans' Forum, please, please, never come out with such a stupid, crass and knowingly untrue statement as the one above, and then dare to say that that area of debate is closed.

 

Back on Topic.

[wardlelatic]

If you want to maintain one single shred of credibility either as a Trust Director, Latics fan or, God help us, the owner of the impartial Fans' Forum, please, please, never come out with such a stupid, crass and knowingly untrue statement as the one above, and then dare to say that that area of debate is closed.

 

Back on Topic.

 

 

I never said it was closed I asked for the thread to be on topic, there is a section for trust debates and questions.

[leeslover]

I never said it was closed I asked for the thread to be on topic, there is a section for trust debates and questions.

Fine. Then keep your clearly idiotic and false statements about democracy within the Trust in the Trust forum where they belong and move all your other posts of that nature there, if you don't like to see them contradicting in the main Forum. Do not yourself post about Trust matters in threads that are not about the Trust. And do not seek to tell people when they can or cannot speak about matters that you have already had your say on, and then tell them to shut up, as if you are our daddy. If the Trust is not relevant in the main forum now, then you really have been spinning us a story over the last few years, eh?

[wardlelatic]

Fine. Then keep your clearly idiotic and false statements about democracy within the Trust in the Trust forum where they belong and move all your other posts of that nature there, if you don't like to see them contradicting in the main Forum. Do not yourself post about Trust matters in threads that are not about the Trust. And do not seek to tell people when they can or cannot speak about matters that you have already had your say on, and then tell them to shut up, as if you are our daddy. If the Trust is not relevant in the main forum now, then you really have been spinning us a story over the last few years, eh?

 

the trust is in the main forum I created its own sub forum because it is that important !!! If no one answers questions - silence is golden and we are shying.. if we answer we are told to shut up becuase x.. y.. z...

 

I was merely correcting mistakes.

[wardlelatic]

posts added from time to time to allow other threads flow.....

[Matt]

Fine. Then keep your clearly idiotic and false statements about democracy within the Trust in the Trust forum where they belong and move all your other posts of that nature there, if you don't like to see them contradicting in the main Forum. Do not yourself post about Trust matters in threads that are not about the Trust. And do not seek to tell people when they can or cannot speak about matters that you have already had your say on, and then tell them to shut up, as if you are our daddy. If the Trust is not relevant in the main forum now, then you really have been spinning us a story over the last few years, eh?

To be fair - and I ain't the Trusts biggest fan, the "medic" was beating him over the head with an anti-Trust stick at that time, and to be equally fair - Rick carries a friggin stick around with him now just in case other people forget theirs...

[Stitch_KTF]

Well, my popcorn smiley's going to look a little odd in the 'Blitz Leaves' thread now isn't it.

[leeslover]

To be fair - and I ain't the Trusts biggest fan, the "medic" was beating him over the head with an anti-Trust stick at that time, and to be equally fair - Rick carries a friggin stick around with him now just in case other people forget theirs...

You pig! He's taken the anti-Trust stuff into the Trust Forum, now people can see it all over again! People will be googling, "democratic," and scratching their heads until they go bald, and it's all down to a Welshman who likes grappling in baby suits.

 

Shame on you.

 

Let's be clear about this, discussions about our major fanancial backers leaving the club ARE IN NO WAY TO INVOLVE ANY DISCUSSION OF THE TRUST WHICH OWNS 3% OF THE CLUB

[Yard Dog]

To be fair - and I ain't the Trusts biggest fan, the "medic" was beating him over the head with an anti-Trust stick at that time, and to be equally fair - Rick carries a friggin stick around with him now just in case other people forget theirs...

 

'Daddys' 'beatings' 'carrying sticks'......I'm expecting someone to join up to OWTB shortly by the name of Carlin screaming 'Where's ya fackin tool....'

[rudemedic]

WTF- I seem to have started a thread without realising and it makes no sense now (I presume this is going to be corrected eventually), as it references something which is now in anther thread. I've never had an example to hand when people (including but not exclusively me) have questioned the impartiality of the trust board members who are also mods (and more senior) on this site. Now I do.

 

 

Now, I must see if I can find my papers.

[wardlelatic]

WTF- I seem to have started a thread without realising and it makes no sense now (I presume this is going to be corrected eventually), as it references something which is now in anther thread. I've never had an example to hand when people (including but not exclusively me) have questioned the impartiality of the trust board members who are also mods (and more senior) on this site. Now I do.

 

 

Now, I must see if I can find my papers.

 

 

how do you ??? A member of OWTB asked me to seperate these threads into its own section to allow original post to flow !!

 

The last two site manager have not be supporters of the trust for their own reasons.. there is no way in hell they would allow me to take over if they believed I would not allow free thought on all subjects latics related

 

[Ackey]

how do you ??? A member of OWTB asked me to seperate these threads into its own section to allow original post to flow !!

 

The last two site manager have not be supporters of the trust for their own reasons.. there is no way in hell they would allow me to take over if they believed I would not allow free thought on all subjects latics related

As one of the two senior Admin's I'm pretty 'anti-Trust' in many areas.

 

That's not to say I don't trust Barry and Ric, just that I think mistakes have been made and not really learnt from.

 

I would never stand for OWTB 'protecting' the Trust and I think this thread-split was suitable given the two diverging subjects.

[Lookers_Carl]

Why did I suspect my response was going to get a reply from the chief communications director of the stonecutters (oh there I go again its the trust).

 

Having actually looked it up, I got my figures wrong, the figure was £200k, still time will tell how that money could be useful from now, instead of having the voice on the board (what exactly has that done for us- apart from the occassional rant telling us we aren't loyal supporters).

 

And its Mike Newton, not Ian. The rest hasn't been proved either way, except I am an Oldham supporter.

 

BTW if you don't pass the fit and proper persons test you CAN'T be a director of a club, whether Mr. Owen will pass that if we go into administration is another matter.

 

So I'm a mason am I rudemedic for giving up my own time to help Trust Oldham?

 

Constructive criticism, I can take all day, every day (for frigs sace I'm a full time academic, I would be pretty ed if I couldnt) and is something I encourage believe it or not, as an objective eye sometimes sees things that we dont.

 

However, calling people such as myself, rick, and other trust directors who dont post on here (excluding barry, who you seemingly treated seperately) stonecutters/masons, is offensive, downright insulting, and nothing more than petty name calling, especially considering the amount of time some of our other directors give up to help trust oldham, a hell of alot!!!!

 

As for the whole 'stonecutters'/closed shop kind of thing. The phrase I would apply to that starts with b, end with ull:censored:. We have plenty of room for directors at the moment, and I will nominate anyone who is willing to come on board and help out.

 

But as usual, far too many people would rather point and ridicule directors who give up their free time to help Trust Oldham/ OAFC and tell them what they should/shouldnt have been doing, as opposed to coming on board, getting stuck in and showing people how it should be done.

 

[latic12345]

However, calling people such as myself, rick, and other trust directors who dont post on here (excluding barry, who you seemingly treated seperately) stonecutters/masons, is offensive, downright insulting, and nothing more than petty name calling, especially considering the amount of time some of our other directors give up to help trust oldham, a hell of alot!!!!

 

Do you think Stonecutters / masons may also be offended by the comparison?

 

I know little about the Trust or its workings. However, it seems to me that the Trust should have been set up to invest in the clubs future. It also appears little of the money that has been raised was used in this way. More it was used for operational stuff such as tractors...

 

My main observation of the Trust is that Barry Owen considers himself a director of the club first (a long ambition from the days in which I knew him in the Chaddy) and a fans representative second. Let's be clear on this, if the Trust didn't exist, Barry would not be a director of the club and therefore it appears, from the outside, his priorities are wrong and that he wishes to protect his place on the board above his position as a fans representative.

 

I will not comment on the democracy debate, however, I would like to ask 2 questions:

 

Why should questions about the role of the Trust not be included in a thread that is about the future of the club given this is what it was set up to do?

When we Barry last elected and held to account by his members?

[De_La_Vega]

Steady on people, this is all far too personal.

 

Why don't we all pop some valium, sit back and take all references to Masons etc out of the equation.

 

Fundamental issue is that the Trust is not a Democracy, and the word doesn't mean rule of the people I'm afraid. Despite the etymology of the word (which is "people-power") it's most famous for the association with the Greek idea whereby one man had one vote, and there was a common assembly where they listened to key debates affecting them and theirs before casting it. Everyone pitched in, and everyone's vote had the same weight. That is not what we have in Britain, in Local Councils or within the Trust - those are usually representative Democracies whereby an elected group (from the Demos obviously) form an Oligarchy of sorts.

 

Pointless waffle maybe, but the point that the guys at the Trust are missing is surely intrinsic to the above. While the Trust feel that they have put together a good system (and I'm not saying that they haven't) there are guys on the outside looking in who are not privy to the process of power. If elections are not public and easily accessible then they do not stand as a Democracy, and to take this to its illogical extreme this makes the Oligarchy thus produced a Tyranny. Which I guess makes Barry Owen a representative Tyrant. Tyrrany can be benevolant, but it is still the rule by one over others.

 

That is not the Trust's focus; it is meant to represent all Oldham supporters, and if there are Trust members who feel that their voices are not heard then they have the right to step up and address the assembly. In a Democracy there was no qualification required to stand up in front of the people, you did not need to be sponsored by others - maybe this is the heart of the problem.

 

I doubt there are many people on here who genuinely think the Trust aren't doing what they do with the club's interests at heart, but there is clearly no agreement on what those interests are. So instead why don't we drop the snide insults and the wounded dignity on both sides and get this debate "BOT". There are questions put to the Trust that are not being satisfactorily answered. We shouldn't need a Bloody Sunday inquiry to get justice in our burgeoning Democracy so why can we not start again and actually address the make up of the Trust and its role?

Edited July 7, 2010 by De_La_Vega

[rudemedic]

So I'm a mason am I rudemedic for giving up my own time to help Trust Oldham?

 

Constructive criticism, I can take all day, every day (for frigs sace I'm a full time academic, I would be pretty ed if I couldnt) and is something I encourage believe it or not, as an objective eye sometimes sees things that we dont.

 

However, calling people such as myself, rick, and other trust directors who dont post on here (excluding barry, who you seemingly treated seperately) stonecutters/masons, is offensive, downright insulting, and nothing more than petty name calling, especially considering the amount of time some of our other directors give up to help trust oldham, a hell of alot!!!!

 

As for the whole 'stonecutters'/closed shop kind of thing. The phrase I would apply to that starts with b, end with ull:censored:. We have plenty of room for directors at the moment, and I will nominate anyone who is willing to come on board and help out.

 

But as usual, far too many people would rather point and ridicule directors who give up their free time to help Trust Oldham/ OAFC and tell them what they should/shouldnt have been doing, as opposed to coming on board, getting stuck in and showing people how it should be done.

 

You want some constructive criticsm- shall we observe Pendleton's rules of feedback (see I can use my academic background too).

What did you do well- The trust did a great job raising the money, there's probably other stuff you've done since but since I don't really know what that is I can't comment.

What can you do better- You could have spent the money better, £200k for a meaningless share and a seat on the board for Mr. Owen (in almost perpetuity since getting him off is proving very difficult). The money you have raised since, instead of buying a nice new tractor for the pitch, and helping to fund the youth team's minibus, should have been invested somewhere- did you vote on what to do with the money? So instead of having a tractor we might have some money to help stave off administration (or possibly help fund a player).

 

Now the other thing, instead of coming on hear and bleating when you get called the masons you should actually have done something about it. I'm not talking about making the process of electing Mr. Owen clearer I'm talking about the process being fairer instead of roughly 12 people electing their mate. Yes you can argue that the 12 people can change but I presume you have had an election since March/April/May 09, how well was it publicised? Plus when it comes up for Mr. Owen's reelection how many of the board don't stand against him, because they either don't want to (for numerous reasons, including the fact he is their mate), or because (and this is going to be paraphrased) "he is the best person from the trust to do the job." If the whole world worked like that then we'd all be still living in caves hunting animals with big sticks and maybe using a bit of fire. I've mentioned previously how the elections could be manipulated by the trust chair and I'm unsure if that problem has been rectifyed but I'm guessing it hasn't. Holding elections in a more democratic manner (and these are not democratic despite whatever you believe and can mis-define) than this is not hard. Loads of people on here have a vested interest in the trust- after all its their money- but can't do much about it because it is such a closed shop (something actually the masons don't do because once your in you can have a say).

 

Shall we move on to Mr. Owen- what has he done well. Its fairly obvious that he's created such a good rapport with the other directors.

 

Now what has he done badly, he's allowed the trust that he is part of (in fact he chairs) to become nothing more than either a money making scheme for the club. He has created such a rapport with the directors that he is mistrusted by a significant portion of the fans he is supposed to represent. Not to mention that in the event the current owner(s) sell up to someone else he is seen so much as their man that the new owner could make himself very popular by getting rid of him straight away. I know it would be one of the first thing I'd do.

 

Now lets talk about what happens when the current owner(s) sell up, if they sell for a nominal fee (say £1 after all its what the owners bought the club for), the 3% share the trust owns becomes worth 3p (3% of £1), as the owner is now legally enforced to offer other shareholders the same deal. Did the £200k buy the trust 3% of the land as well, since that is well known to be owned by a seperate company? A trust director has said (in my opinion wrongly) the the club (without the land) is worth £1million, in that case the trust with their £200k worth of money should have gotten 20% of the club and not 3%. I still stand by that the 3% of the club is worth 3p.

[Lookers_Carl]

Do you think Stonecutters / masons may also be offended by the comparison?

 

I know little about the Trust or its workings. However, it seems to me that the Trust should have been set up to invest in the clubs future. It also appears little of the money that has been raised was used in this way. More it was used for operational stuff such as tractors...

 

My main observation of the Trust is that Barry Owen considers himself a director of the club first (a long ambition from the days in which I knew him in the Chaddy) and a fans representative second. Let's be clear on this, if the Trust didn't exist, Barry would not be a director of the club and therefore it appears, from the outside, his priorities are wrong and that he wishes to protect his place on the board above his position as a fans representative.

 

I will not comment on the democracy debate, however, I would like to ask 2 questions:

 

Why should questions about the role of the Trust not be included in a thread that is about the future of the club given this is what it was set up to do?

When we Barry last elected and held to account by his members?

 

Quite possibly they might!!!

 

As for the rest of it, criticism like this I will listen to all day long. It is constructive, and doesnt result to petty namecalling.

 

Re the last bit, Barry, as chairman, is not elected by members. He is elected by ruling directors. And if my memory serves me correctly, it was 12 months ago. As far as I can remember there was no directors who wanted to stand against him, and he wanted to continue.

 

 

 

[De_La_Vega]

You want some constructive criticsm- shall we observe Pendleton's rules of feedback (see I can use my academic background too).

What did you do well- The trust did a great job raising the money, there's probably other stuff you've done since but since I don't really know what that is I can't comment.

What can you do better- You could have spent the money better, £200k for a meaningless share and a seat on the board for Mr. Owen (in almost perpetuity since getting him off is proving very difficult). The money you have raised since, instead of buying a nice new tractor for the pitch, and helping to fund the youth team's minibus, should have been invested somewhere- did you vote on what to do with the money? So instead of having a tractor we might have some money to help stave off administration (or possibly help fund a player).

 

Now the other thing, instead of coming on hear and bleating when you get called the masons you should actually have done something about it. I'm not talking about making the process of electing Mr. Owen clearer I'm talking about the process being fairer instead of roughly 12 people electing their mate. Yes you can argue that the 12 people can change but I presume you have had an election since March/April/May 09, how well was it publicised? Plus when it comes up for Mr. Owen's reelection how many of the board don't stand against him, because they either don't want to (for numerous reasons, including the fact he is their mate), or because (and this is going to be paraphrased) "he is the best person from the trust to do the job." If the whole world worked like that then we'd all be still living in caves hunting animals with big sticks and maybe using a bit of fire. I've mentioned previously how the elections could be manipulated by the trust chair and I'm unsure if that problem has been rectifyed but I'm guessing it hasn't. Holding elections in a more democratic manner (and these are not democratic despite whatever you believe and can mis-define) than this is not hard. Loads of people on here have a vested interest in the trust- after all its their money- but can't do much about it because it is such a closed shop (something actually the masons don't do because once your in you can have a say).

 

Shall we move on to Mr. Owen- what has he done well. Its fairly obvious that he's created such a good rapport with the other directors.

 

Now what has he done badly, he's allowed the trust that he is part of (in fact he chairs) to become nothing more than either a money making scheme for the club. He has created such a rapport with the directors that he is mistrusted by a significant portion of the fans he is supposed to represent. Not to mention that in the event the current owner(s) sell up to someone else he is seen so much as their man that the new owner could make himself very popular by getting rid of him straight away. I know it would be one of the first thing I'd do.

 

Now lets talk about what happens when the current owner(s) sell up, if they sell for a nominal fee (say £1 after all its what the owners bought the club for), the 3% share the trust owns becomes worth 3p (3% of £1), as the owner is now legally enforced to offer other shareholders the same deal. Did the £200k buy the trust 3% of the land as well, since that is well known to be owned by a seperate company? A trust director has said (in my opinion wrongly) the the club (without the land) is worth £1million, in that case the trust with their £200k worth of money should have gotten 20% of the club and not 3%. I still stand by that the 3% of the club is worth 3p.

Much as I agree with a lot of this, is it worth talking about the share value of OAFC now when the bigger issue is surely the land? Granted I'm no expert in business finance but I have always been of the understanding that the value of the club lay in its ownership of the Boundary Park site?

 

Can't help feeling that there are other issues we should be addressing, such as how does the Trust react to the new reality at BP? Which incidentally I'd be delighted to have a member answer.

 

What is the current status of the land, and what is in the coffers of the Trust that was once ring-fenced?

[Lookers_Carl]

You want some constructive criticsm- shall we observe Pendleton's rules of feedback (see I can use my academic background too).

What did you do well- The trust did a great job raising the money, there's probably other stuff you've done since but since I don't really know what that is I can't comment.

What can you do better- You could have spent the money better, £200k for a meaningless share and a seat on the board for Mr. Owen (in almost perpetuity since getting him off is proving very difficult). The money you have raised since, instead of buying a nice new tractor for the pitch, and helping to fund the youth team's minibus, should have been invested somewhere- did you vote on what to do with the money? So instead of having a tractor we might have some money to help stave off administration (or possibly help fund a player).

 

Now the other thing, instead of coming on hear and bleating when you get called the masons you should actually have done something about it. I'm not talking about making the process of electing Mr. Owen clearer I'm talking about the process being fairer instead of roughly 12 people electing their mate. Yes you can argue that the 12 people can change but I presume you have had an election since March/April/May 09, how well was it publicised? Plus when it comes up for Mr. Owen's reelection how many of the board don't stand against him, because they either don't want to (for numerous reasons, including the fact he is their mate), or because (and this is going to be paraphrased) "he is the best person from the trust to do the job." If the whole world worked like that then we'd all be still living in caves hunting animals with big sticks and maybe using a bit of fire. I've mentioned previously how the elections could be manipulated by the trust chair and I'm unsure if that problem has been rectifyed but I'm guessing it hasn't. Holding elections in a more democratic manner (and these are not democratic despite whatever you believe and can mis-define) than this is not hard. Loads of people on here have a vested interest in the trust- after all its their money- but can't do much about it because it is such a closed shop (something actually the masons don't do because once your in you can have a say).

 

Shall we move on to Mr. Owen- what has he done well. Its fairly obvious that he's created such a good rapport with the other directors.

 

Now what has he done badly, he's allowed the trust that he is part of (in fact he chairs) to become nothing more than either a money making scheme for the club. He has created such a rapport with the directors that he is mistrusted by a significant portion of the fans he is supposed to represent. Not to mention that in the event the current owner(s) sell up to someone else he is seen so much as their man that the new owner could make himself very popular by getting rid of him straight away. I know it would be one of the first thing I'd do.

 

Now lets talk about what happens when the current owner(s) sell up, if they sell for a nominal fee (say £1 after all its what the owners bought the club for), the 3% share the trust owns becomes worth 3p (3% of £1), as the owner is now legally enforced to offer other shareholders the same deal. Did the £200k buy the trust 3% of the land as well, since that is well known to be owned by a seperate company? A trust director has said (in my opinion wrongly) the the club (without the land) is worth £1million, in that case the trust with their £200k worth of money should have gotten 20% of the club and not 3%. I still stand by that the 3% of the club is worth 3p.

 

Was that so hard without the namecalling and insults?

 

And re 'you should do something about it when your called the masons'. What the hell is that supposed to mean??? Calling other directors of the trust stonecutters/masons is petty namecalling, nothing more, nothing less. And as for what I am going to do about being called a mason? Nothing, I'm not going to engage in it. Simple as really. I am going to continue to give what time I can to helping the trust and the club, instead of taking snipes and calling people names, yet doing sod all to help, which seems to be your preferred option.

[rudemedic]

Was that so hard without the namecalling and insults?

 

And re 'you should do something about it when your called the masons'. What the hell is that supposed to mean??? Calling other directors of the trust stonecutters/masons is petty namecalling, nothing more, nothing less. And as for what I am going to do about being called a mason? Nothing, I'm not going to engage in it. Simple as really. I am going to continue to give what time I can to helping the trust and the club, instead of taking snipes and calling people names, yet doing sod all to help, which seems to be your preferred option.

 

OK then despite thinking I had made myself clear- if you don't like being called a mason and see it as petty name-calling, then make the election process of the trust (in particular the chairman) fairer and more democratic. Given that it is so undemocratic now it shouldn't be too hard. When you do that maybe some people won't "name-call" you masons.

[Zorrro]

OK then despite thinking I had made myself clear- if you don't like being called a mason and see it as petty name-calling, then make the election process of the trust (in particular the chairman) fairer and more democratic. Given that it is so undemocratic now it shouldn't be too hard. When you do that maybe some people won't "name-call" you masons.

 

I agree entirely with the crux of your point, but you're going at it completely arse-about-face.