Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Results from Supporters Trust survey

Results from Supporters Trust survey

+6
Fabians Right Peg
Natasha Whittam
boltonbonce
wanderlust
Sluffy
Norpig
10 posters

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Results from Supporters Trust survey Empty Results from Supporters Trust survey Mon May 16 2016, 12:20

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I've attached a link to the results from the recent survey for ST members, hopefully i'm ok to post this on here?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Of course you are Norpig.

We've always said that Nuts is a place where all views and opinions are welcomed (within the law and good taste obviously) even if they are not popular amongst others.

As for the survey, there is an art in designing the questions so that they don't lead to what the people behind them wanted in the first place and it seems fairly obvious that that is evident here.

Right from the off the people behind the ST wanted to have control of the club and later on went all in to seek Preferred Bidder status in front of Holdsworth.

If you cut to the chase of the questionnaire in basically is asking would the members give them a mandate to take on the club and how much money could they expect to raise if (when!) they did.

It is all meaningless anyway as I predict the many of the current unelected Steering Group will stand and be elected and carry on exactly the way they have to date.

It is interesting to note though that one of the first of the Steering Group has suddenly disappeared and painted out of history - I don't think he will be the last either!


Guest


Guest

The bit about asking people how much they'd donate, swiftly followed by a follow up question basically saying "If you had more time to save up, would you give us more cash?" made me laugh.

Tawdry and desperate.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Looking at the two questions relating to donations, if everyone who responded actually coughed up they'd be looking at somewhere between £200k and £400k income.

These are the early adopters though so it's not likely they are going to get many more committing dosh and if that's the case my first impression is that at best they will be a bit part player - a fancy focus group.

If they had ten or twenty times more money committed the club might take them seriously.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:Of course you are Norpig.

We've always said that Nuts is a place where all views and opinions are welcomed (within the law and good taste obviously) even if they are not popular amongst others.

As for the survey, there is an art in designing the questions so that they don't lead to what the people behind them wanted in the first place and it seems fairly obvious that that is evident here.

Right from the off the people behind the ST wanted to have control of the club and later on went all in to seek Preferred Bidder status in front of Holdsworth.

If you cut to the chase of the questionnaire in basically is asking would the members give them a mandate to take on the club and how much money could they expect to raise if (when!) they did.

It is all meaningless anyway as I predict the many of the current unelected Steering Group will stand and be elected and carry on exactly the way they have to date.

It is interesting to note though that one of the first of the Steering Group has suddenly disappeared and painted out of history - I don't think he will be the last either!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Counting the days until the new season. Can't wait.

Guest


Guest

From what i have read they are currently trying to raise funds to support the academy. Nothing against that what so ever given that most of our first team will be academy players next season.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

y2johnny wrote:From what i have read they are currently trying to raise funds to support the academy. Nothing against that what so ever given that most of our first team will be academy players next season.

Well that isn't exactly the case.

On the 4th May Hurst and Bridge of the Steering Group met Ken Anderson which was kept very low key reported on.  Reading between the few lines of what was reported it looks like the Trust was trying to repair the damage that they had done when they stood against the new owners to seek Preferred Bidder Status at the request of the then owners agent Trevor Birch - and which they no doubt have compounded since by putting in their survey the loaded question of do people 'have serious concerns' about the new owners to which 30% replied thy do - so much for mutual respect then!

The meeting was clearly an abject failure for the ST and again the already cliched line of seeking 'mutual and respect and understanding' was trotted out once again.

About the only thing said at the meeting was the survey seemed to suggest a majority wanted to help the academy out.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However reading the results from the survey the only bit I can see that relates to this is the possible sponsoring of one or more academy player.

To put this into context though the now defunct Bolton Banter sponsored previous academy players (Robert Sissons now at Droylsden being one iirc), so hardly a major investment (although one most welcomed no doubt).


It is quite intriguing however what the Trust will do with the money it has raised so far as I see a conflict of interest here.

Should the Trust spend publically raised money to financially support the current owners of whom a third of their membership have publically stated they don't trust or perhaps watch the club they support go to the wall and keep the money in the bank and wait to hopefully buy the club out of Administration.

It is kind of like the question 'do you want Bolton to keep losing' so we can see the back of Megson / Coyle / or now in this case Holdsworth and Anderson.

As Anderson has already asked for £3 million investment should the ST not help out by contributing to this with what they have or should they stand idly by and not get involved?

A bit of a quandary for them really.

Fabians Right Peg

Fabians Right Peg
Andy Walker
Andy Walker

What I don't understand is the need now for the steering group to be trying to set up a path for the elected members to take forward. Surely a better way is to let those wanting to stand for election put forward their views and then let the membership vote on what is put forward?

gloswhite

gloswhite
Guðni Bergsson
Guðni Bergsson

I would have thought that at this stage of the game, they would all have the same points aim, but as you say how can people vote when they don't know what for?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Fabians Right Peg wrote:What I don't understand is the need now for the steering group to be trying to set up a path for the elected members to take forward. Surely a better way is to let those wanting to stand for election put forward their views and then let the membership vote on what is put forward?

Exactly.

What is the point in standing if you are already mandated to do something you may not agree with?

The agenda as already been set by non elected people who intend to stand for full election on the back of an agenda they have already set and the general popularity of holding the legends game.

In normal politics their actions would without question be deemed to be illegal.

Thankfully it will all count for nothing as Anderson has clearly got their measure already and are keeping them at arms length.

Pity because the concept of an ST is a fair one but its been hijacked by a few who think they are smart enough to manipulate the majority to get what they want.

Well you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

And sooner or later most will see through their act and naked ambition.

You've only to ask the BWSA views of them to confirm that.



blasterbolton


David Ngog
David Ngog

Sluffy wrote:
Fabians Right Peg wrote:What I don't understand is the need now for the steering group to be trying to set up a path for the elected members to take forward. Surely a better way is to let those wanting to stand for election put forward their views and then let the membership vote on what is put forward?

Exactly.

What is the point in standing if you are already mandated to do something you may not agree with?

The agenda as already been set by non elected people who intend to stand for full election on the back of an agenda they have already set and the general popularity of holding the legends game.

In normal politics their actions would without question be deemed to be illegal.

Thankfully it will all count for nothing as Anderson has clearly got their measure already and are keeping them at arms length.

Pity because the concept of an ST is a fair one but its been hijacked by a few who think they are smart enough to manipulate the majority to get what they want.

Well you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

And sooner or later most will see through their act and naked ambition.

You've only to ask the BWSA views of them to confirm that.



How can the ST be hijacked when the people making the decisions are the people who founded it?
Also the ST mandate was set by Supporters Direct, the Steering Group are merely implementing that mandate as will any elected member in the future.

You mentioned in politics their actions would be illegal, I'm a little puzzled with this comment, If I was a politician I'd join the party that best represents my politics, I already know which side of the fence each party stands, so if I was a Tory, I wouldn't join the Labour Party.

The Supporters Trust Policies/Mandate/Aims are already written and set down it the Model Rules (in laymen's terms, they're the Tories)
I'm under no illusion that if I was to stand for election I'd have to on the whole be behind the trust which includes their mandate and policies.(in essence, be a Tory)

If I don't agree, I'll start up my alternative Supporters Club or join the BWSA (Labour Party) and be an passive objector



Last edited by blasterbolton on Sat May 21 2016, 22:19; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

Or we could just ignore the whole pointless, vanity project charade and let it fizzle out.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

BWSA scratch   BWST scratch I'm a member of both.

I'll join anything me.

MartinBWFC

MartinBWFC
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

boltonbonce wrote:BWSA scratch   BWST scratch I'm a member of both.

I'll join anything me.
I would too, but I draw the line at the BFAS, Just not enough support.

scottjames30

scottjames30
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

MartinBWFC wrote:
boltonbonce wrote:BWSA scratch   BWST scratch I'm a member of both.

I'll join anything me.
I would too, but I draw the line at the BFAS, Just not enough support.

Any cheap holidays Laughing

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Reply to topic

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Results from Supporters Trust survey

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum