I agree with OI - I'm certainly not seeking to disrupt or rollback the election, merely get onto it or, more likely, ensure fair and vibrant elections are more likely to be the case in future than they have been in the past.

Cheers Biggles I'm sure had TF/SB stood I'm sure you'd have got to ask questions however due to others treating him unfairly and the DTB Chair who was also involved in banning from Proboards also involved in Rule 30 hearing although like yourself I'm sure he was completely unbiased in his thoughts

Timmy - absolutely agree he should have been allowed to stand and be voted in or not on the basis of the vote. but given there is an election, i do feel we need something to inform our votes - i'm struggling to find more than four votes and reckon we could get this very wrong (IMHO)

All those questions are easy to answer Biggles, mostly because they don't deal in facts, just your version of what happened. Happy to have them put my way in the course of an election. Sadly, for both of us, that's not where we are right now.

It was wrong to exclude Shane but the elections are definitely not null and void, they are happening, people will get elected and serve unless a court intervenes later, which personally I think is unlikely. So we need to get people elected who will stand firm against being steam-rollered by the current group.

I agree with Russ and Nicander, can't refuse to allow to stand on personality. I absolutely hate the way the decision appears to be done, without any regard of how poor this looks. The only people I've heard of that are in agreement are either in the clique or too spineless to put it out there that it's a coward that turns the other way in the face of injustice. Nobody will criticise them for not voting, but its a shit move to hide behind technicality when technically it should have be addressed in the spirit of democracy.

Clarification - not “disgusting”, but something along the lines of decision was wrong not to include him

Doobs, the election is null and void. Sod the hustings. Shane has been wronged and I don’t think you should be pushing it. Even one of the candidates has openly said the decision was disgusting and apparently an ESG member has stood down over it. What a time to stand down, during an election period!

The real problem is that 'Shanegate' taints the entire ESG and I for one will treat the ESG as a complete irrelevance as they have not been fairly elected. This is a pity, because it could have been a very useful body.

Biggles - all are fair questions to ask - but none are in any way relevant to the wrong that has occurred. A bit like free speech - I may not agree with what you say, but I will resolutely defend your right to say it.

Too many "or nots" there, good thing I don't do this for a living, Jesus wept

Agree with Russ on all points. Biggles, all your points are irrelevant to whether or not a member should be allowed to stand in an election or not. They are very relevant to members' decision to vote for them or not.

"hiding here behind your pseudonym", said Biggles!

apropos of nothing, a couple of us have looked into putting some sort of hustings on, in the absence of anything else. Have asked the ESG about contacting candidates (whethe they can supply contacts for all, or pass our invite on to all) and yet to hear back. In the meantime, have asked candidates on PB and five (so far) have said they'd be keen (subject to availability etc). If it happens, would likely be a very (very) basic Q&A - maybe 10-15 minutes each - to be shared on YT. Personal feeling is the campaign has been a bit low-key and while using ProBoards is great for what it is, and the best we have currently, nothing beats seeing the whites on a person's eyes when answering a tricky (probably not that tricky) question. probably looking about 50/50 atm, as cant do much without candidate contacts and the clock is ticking, but just to share that we are trying...

This Shane Bellamy chap sounds an awfully good egg.

For the hattrick (unless someone interrupts) - I'm a bit dismayed by the state of the strategy document. It would have been a much more informative document if it actually quoted some of the figures they were able to reel off last night, like what budget we need to compete at the top of League One, for example. That helps members to know what the scale of the challenge is. Instead we were giving a fluffy document that just states some aspirations without really a clear vision how we get there. Many of these figures are known. Why not put them in there?

Whether you feel a candidate is toxic or a bad choice for the DTB doesn't excuse the ESG from running an unfair process. I agree with some of the criticism, because it makes it difficult for them to work with some existing board members, but it shouldn't affect the ESG's decision making process. The membership should decide if they wish for someone to be elected or not.

I had a tender where a bidder came in and quoted a cost that was 15p per day above their cap. We had an internal discussion and decided it is disproportionate to exclude someone for a minor error. That's without any error on our part. If we had made an error we would have been more flexible, bearing in mind we need to be fair to all bidders... It is fair to provide some leeway where an error has inadvertently led to someone sending their forms to the wrong place. There is also no disadvantage to others if the nomination submitted pre deadline is used for the election. They haven't had more time to prepare. In fact its obviously disadvantageous for someone to be entered late as they have had less time to engage and fewer people have read a manifesto. The election rules are supposed to encourage a vibrant election, not kick people out at any minor breach of the rules.

These are some of the questions that should be put to Shane Bellamy: 1) how do you defend being banned from Proboards three times in the last 18 months, twice for lying about your identity and once for abusing a volunteer? 2) why did you like making defamatory allegations on Proboards, about past and present DT board members, that had to be removed to avoid legal actions? 3) when hiding here behind your pseudonym of Trigger you posted lots of personal abuse of DT board members, repeatedly calling named individuals "cunts" and "cancerous cunts" who should be "driven out of the club". How do you intend to pursue this policy if elected? How do you intend explaining your abuse if you meet these people at any DT meetings?

As soon as they sent the voting links out they effectively closed this election to new people. If they entered Shane today then I couldn't vote for him as my voting has been entered and can't be changed.

Scotty, he's going to be the closest to doing a hustings.... :-)

The election dates aren't an issue; the DTB can simply co-opt Trigger onto the Board. Sorted.

Thanks 6mdm and safe travels to Barrow (I've gone for a surprised-myself-with-the-optimism 0-1 win.) As for your question, my end goal here is to stand for election to the DTB. You're right in that with it seeming like my only remaining option here is a legal challenge that the elections will almost certainly be finished by the time it's resolved. I don't know what that means in terms of validity/continuity so I'm just staying focused on the immediate next steps.

Could always run an election with Shane alone, and if his voting numbers beat the eighth place, he goes, or barring that, the Chair walks....

6MDM I agree with you and have told TF not to invest too much energy into this for what at the end of day is a volunteer role however what has happened is wrong and am certain had this been anyone else we would have 13 names in the election also the fact that 9yrs pulled out of hustings with various reasons and a member of the ESG has resigned shows TF support that this entire situation is unfair. Also after the last contested election we had with the hustings being taken on by a podcast with a candidate and the ballot survey being locked out to the ESG the following election was uncontested and I can already understand why others would have 2nd thoughts as only have to look at Proboards and the amount of questions being asked at the candidates for a volunteer role plus current DTB members asking and answering questions who then can't answer questions directed at them in Ask The Board!! So if anything this whole sham has proved that their is a clique and the DTB will ignore their members until we see big changes with those making decisions