DunDonald it's an interesting one that got blurred by the DTB making all season ticket holders default trust members. Realistically all the DTB should be a conduit for is the DT membership. It's an oversight body for the owners not a fan representation group. Also not a career path. Also not where things like the women's team should be managed/run/funded. Also not where people should use the assumed backing of the owners to carry out their own ideas.

One perennial question is whether the DT's role is purely as described by Alan IOW or whether it also encompasses acting as a conduit for supporters to have a dialogue with the club about their interests as "consumers." Should that be left to WISA or part of the DT's brief? To take an example, Aideen asked a question about Man-of-the-match at the SGM, to which the reply was that was an operational matter for the club. I can see that it's difficult for the DTB to get snarled up in such issues if they're to serve their strategic oversight purpose and not overstep the mark. But I can also see that it's an issue that matters to (at least some) fans. I agree, by the way, with OI's view that knowing the answer to "what the Trust is for" will be relevant to the constitutional review.

Whilst Oscar was right about socialism taking up too many evenings, he was way too specific, any part of politics or running voluntary organisations takes up too many evenings. So such bodies will always be populated by the few people who disagree with the sentiment.

if there is a single person left on Earth who isn't sick of hearing my voice yet, I will be talking about us and promoting the fundraising on BBC Radio London at around 1.30 today

Agree with Alan’s moral. The DTB would have happily walked away from that meeting with nothing changed at all. The constitution spotlight was a success in itself.

I know the reality is different from the ideal, but to me the DT needs to shrink its operations by about 90%. To me, as the legal owners, it obviously has to exist. There onwards however, it really needs to have minimal input, beyond a supervisorial role into how the club operates. The PLC have to employ people, even if its to head up various volunteer groups, that are directly accountable and ultimately sackable if performance targets aren't reached.

Lurks - I'm not sure what's worse that or the "FSA recommends" oh wait, "the FSA doesn't make recommendations". Especially given the original false text deliberately remained in circulation.

People to stand for the DTB you say Trigger? You know I will.

OI I think no one knows what the DTB is for anymore, other than a hobby horse for some to get their own ideas put through on the nod.

I still think the whole "we've got amendments coming", leaving the guys hanging on for them forever and then insulting everyone's intelligence by saying Andrea was their amendments, rather than just apologising, was disgraceful behaviour.

Hopefully enough decent people will stand at the upcoming elections and we can vote on enough of them to get Angus removed as chair.

Of course, if the DTB had wanted to make things easier for you (and they should presumably acknowledge that they were unintentionally making things difficult by not knowing how many members they had), they could have convened an SGM themselves, purely for the purpose of discussing the members' resolutions. That would in no way preclude them from convening another, regular SGM at a time of their choosing.

The other thing to bear in mind is that you called for an SGM so as to hold the votes on the Members' Resolutions before voting on the Restricted Action got underway. I would think a substantial chunk of the effort went into convening an SGM, which is a significant exercise. Members' resolutions can of course be presented at any SGM or AGM convened by the board.

Nobody even seems to know what the DT is for these days and we will get a revamp of a constitution allegedly prepared for a Welsh water company (really?) that may then have been adjusted to reflect what the DT was trying to do at the start of the century. The probability of getting one fitted to what the DT is or should be doing for the second quarter of the century is close to zero.

nicander the only thing I'd slightly disagree with is the pressure has built because people have gone down the route of SGMs and member resolutions. The piss poor way the DTB has dealt with that is giving people a visible idea of what they're like. Otherwise it's just people saying it. (Comes across like the muppets who just post negative comments about the club on the multiple face book groups - everyone ignores them or tells them to give it a rest). It needs people to see what is being said in action. Having said that I can imagine it was the most draining process for you guys to get that done. (The cynical part of me feels that's probably what's being hoped for).

Trigger - I mean, we don't get sign-off on it! But that and elections are probably the best chance now of enacting some of the needed changes. I'm not saying no-one should try the SGM/members' resolution route again, and maybe there is more that could have been done on these ones, but I wouldn't be rushing to do it again personally. It doesn't work as it should.

OI - it was announced on the OS.

Geoff Norcott, Rachel Fairburn, Ian Stone

Not sure if that comment was tongue-in-cheek, OI, but see [Link]

Never heard of the comedy evening. Any suggestions as to who could appear?

Just noticed that more seats appear to be unsold for tomorrow's comedy evening than was the case yesterday. I'm wondering if take-up isn't great, and they've not all been made available online at once. Should be a good evening, and a good way of supporting the club at a difficult time.

Good news re the constitution review nicander. That gives me hope.

Just spotted Spartan's post 😁

Steve Seddon?

Bravo to those donating for comedy reasons . Steve Stride, Raj Parker, Asda and Tesco here’s to you