18yardhero Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Riccarton Bluebell is a funny wee guy, can we keep him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decripit Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, 18yardhero said: Riccarton Bluebell is a funny wee guy, can we keep him? No he belongs to us bad Trust boys. Get your own halfwit to play with. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merk Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 18 minutes ago, 18yardhero said: Riccarton Bluebell is a funny wee guy, can we keep him? I'd rather not. I read this whole thread in one go yesterday. Oooft, an absolute car crash for a good few people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post plunkit Posted January 16, 2020 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) It’s a shame to see this thread descend into an Uber Fan argument – or a pissing contest to be blunt. People need to get over themselves. Supporting your team is exactly that – you always do it. You attend matches and functions as and when you can based on your own circumstances. Many people have a great deal more in their lives than going to x number of games. They are not any less of a fan that the next person just because that person attends x+y. However, back to the point. The original poster would have been better placed by asking something along the lines of ‘Are the Trust satisfied with Cathy’s input to the football club board to date?’ This style of question lends itself to a more sensible discussion. It is especially disappointing as there was a clear lack of understanding and appreciation of the significant efforts Cathy has brought to the football club board and some of the changes she has accelerated. Of course, she gave a report to the recent Trust AGM, so not being a Trust member does, I suppose, put the poster at a disadvantage. I also think a personal attack on the capabilities of Cathy was unnecessary. The thread has therefore, as I say, descended into an ‘us and them’ situation. I think that most of the negative stuff comes from a few, but not all, non-Trust members and/or TiK deniers. Please note, that joining the Trust or subscribing to TiK is your personal choice. I’d prefer that you joined / subscribed but respect your choice. You, in turn, should be comfortable that your choice will, in some instances, mean that you are missing out on information such as Cathy’s report to the AGM. Trust members who couldn’t attend the AGM will receive communication regards the meeting in due course. I am no longer on the Trust Board so can’t give specifics on the timing of that. By the way, this situation does not make a Trust member an Uber Fan because they receive information quicker than others in the same way that shareholders of the club are not better fans than non-shareholders. It is the way that these things operate. It is not some kind of special society which looks down on non-members , in the same that non-members should not look upon members in a similar vein. I was on the Trust Board from 2005 until 2018, with a year off in between somewhere. In all that time the Trust worked extremely hard on a great number of community projects which are well documented. Prior to TiK, the most high profile of these was Fifty For The Future (FFTF). I mention this in particular because I can use it as an example of MJ’s attitude towards the Trust, notwithstanding the significant monies it brought into the club’s coffers. Ok, so when Jim Mann became chairman a few years back we were having a meeting to discuss Trust involvement in club projects and so on. Jim adds to the conversation that MJ tells him the Trust and the club have been ‘at war’ about a number of issues over time. When asked what these issues were Jim wasn’t sure. I took this up with MJ directly as, in my time on the Trust Board, there was no instance where the Trust took, let’s call it, a political stance against the club publically. Any issues we had we took directly to him to discuss, quite rightly, behind closed doors. I do recall one situation where he denied obvious wrongdoing by the club so that was taken to another body. It was, admittedly, a bit of a can of worms, but the situation was resolved. A bit of damage to our relationship, but that happens in any working scenario. It turns out that MJ felt we had politicised FFTF because, after we had donated something in the region of £100k we asked if, from that point on, we could receive shares in the football club in return. That was it – how very dare we. Now you have to understand that MJ kinda viewed the Trust as a group of elves who would not hesitate to pick up bits and pieces of projects here and there which the club could not afford to pay for – and in many cases we did that. It’s about club and community afterall. What pissed us off was the constant use of ideas we put to him and selling them as his own once he adopted them at a later date having knocked us back in the first place and/or the constant putting up of barriers to ideas which would, in all cases, have benefited the club. We were expected to stay in our box and receive no return on the investment our members and other donors made, or indeed for the work we put in. So that was it – the big thing that annoyed him most about the Trust – asking for shares in return for cash. Thankfully, and after literally years of negotiation and hard work, on the club’s part too it has to be said, FFTF essentially evolved into a new formal and structured project in the shape of TiK. Regards NAPM – Baz and others have clearly stated on this thread, and I have done so in others over the years – it was not a Trust initiative. The Trust would be acting unconstitutionally to drive such a campaign. That did not mean individual Trust members could not express their own views. That too would have been unconstitutional. Indeed, when the vote of no confidence against MJ took place, The Trust Board met with representatives of those behind that to explain why we could not just put the weight of our shareholding behind that. They had to respect that Trust members would have to vote to allow that to happen or not. Again, all in line with the Trust’s rules and taking into account the members’ wishes. Please, if you cannot ‘get’ the fact that NAPM was nothing to do with the Trust in terms of organisation or endorsement from various comments in threads and it really bugs you – meet me for a coffee and I’ll explain it face-to-face. Not a problem. Similarly, if the thought of TiK sticks in your throat I will happily talk to you about the benefits of the initiative. Finally – stop with the Uber Fan crap. If we truly ‘Are Killie’ we don’t descend into petty point scoring arguments like other clubs’ fans. If, however, you want sensible debate and conversation then I’m you man. Edited January 16, 2020 by plunkit 42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkG Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) An excellent post Plunkit. And good to have a bit of detail for those who don’t know much about it. Time to draw a line imo. For everyone’s sanity. Edited January 16, 2020 by NorfolkG 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBFC Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Case now closed...…..please! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee_Eck1979 Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Close this thread please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee_Eck1979 Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Or even better, please delete it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrangodog Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Well, it might have been been a dire thread but it passed the time with no signings and football to argue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkG Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Agreed. Time to close. The discussion has been had in full. Move on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lroy Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 And so it shall pass. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts