sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Could you have not waited until the poll?
Vote Old Skool 4 the future! (DHST 2015 elections)
- Thread starter Dulwich Mishi
- Start date
No. That's why I proposed a motion. I want people to vote yes in the poll, and so want to encourage them to do so...as well as supporting the new development. At the moment, although I believe the poll is imminent, days or weeks, rather than months...there is nobody giving out information and I am concerned about a sizable percentage voting 'no', because information is not to hand, because there is nobody to push for it... A number of fans will be doing so over the next few weeks, and this can only be for the good.
I, personally, do not agree with not being able to have a public viewpoint, even if it's not in agreeance with current Trust policy. Which is why I stood down, on that principle, of freedom of speech.
I, personally, do not agree with not being able to have a public viewpoint, even if it's not in agreeance with current Trust policy. Which is why I stood down, on that principle, of freedom of speech.
Matboy_Slim
Active Member
Oooh a by-election
I somehow doubt it works like that...the AGM is coming up in July.
mick mccartney
Well-Known Member
Damn right , Mishi , you should have 'integrity' as another middle name . There are so many issues in volved that the trust should be voicing them , so that the electorate is voting with as much knowledge of the issues as possible . Obviously things will change over time , but in my opinion the first thing we need is a new stadium . The current one is no longer fit for purpose . There are two or three potentially dangerous bottlenecks , the bar/gazebo bar situation is a joke and lack of terracing means severely restricted views for many .But , oh , look , here's someone willing to build us a new stadium . I'm sure I'll have plenty of problems with many things Hadley come up with in the future , but let's at least give the go-ahead to a realistic alternative.
I don't think he'll be changing his middle name again. I suspect he quite likes Dulwich.
Scutta
Live Fast Die Bizarre
I can see your point of view and dont wholly disagree, although some people are missing the point of the position the trust has taken . I think communication does need to be better, and all the information needs to be out there. Which it seems the committee (and other fans) are taking a position and hopefully will be providing information to why its unsustainable - as it is, just as outside organisations are providing information on how important Greendale is. However the Trust is a representative organisation and in regards to the vote, the trust board do not feel it is appropriate to campaign either way as it would loose the integrity of the vote. If the trust was to just say vote yes because of...... Then when the vote is presented to the council it would be meaningless as they would say, well of course they said that you only gave them that option. So the board has to represent what the member decide democratically, who make their decision on the information they have in front of them, not what the trust as an organisation tells them to do. Obviously recently there has been more anti than positive from certain groups around the redevelopment but as i said hopefully with the committees new invigorated stance we will hear more, which is great so everyone can have a more informed discussion.
I commend all fans who want to go out there and express there opinions and provide as much information on the situation so people can make the correct decision, whichever side of the fence they are campaigning for. However the board needs to represent what we as members decide, not dictate one side or the other.
Matboy_Slim
Active Member
Gutted! Was harking back to old skool days when during every election my house was the committee rooms for Labour... while all my mates had the day off school I had to keep going back round to Jessop to collect the poxy returns.
Wanted the day off work
I agree if the Board is holding a vote it shouldn't take an official position. I don't agree that means individual members can't express a personal opinion on it though if asked.
Scutta
Live Fast Die Bizarre
we can express personal opinions, but campaigning and personal opinions through media are slightly different. Either way i hope we will be in a better position with the committee taking the stance they have.
So by 'personal opinions' a Board Member could say, face to face, wht it is a good idea, or even why they are agianst it. But are not able to convey that via social media, on here, for exmaple, where more fans/members will read their views?
And there would be nothing to stop anyone saying 'Scutta told me..' and posting it, so surely better to have personal opinions direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
As it is...I'm nor concerned the reasons for the Board not using social media/printed media, as I am now not tied with my hand with my pen tied behind my back.
I hope, that by speaking in favour, I will actually strengthen the 'YES' vote for the Trust, thus putting them in a better position when there is a strong 'yes' vote.
I genuinely think that to vote 'no' by a majority, or even a large percentage 'losing to YES' it will weaken their chances of having supporter ownership handeded to them, if that is the route hcosen by our owners.
And it also needs mentioning that, whatever the outcome of vote, for or against, yes the Trust are the only supporters' organisation as we don't have a 'traditional' supporters' club, but the Trust certainly do not represent the majority of our supporters.
Our average home crowd is about 1,300; and our biggest home gate was almost 2,500. Many fans don't go every game, some maybe only a few, so you could say our fanbase based on those figures is around the 3,000 mark. Though that could be higher or lower, based on your guesswork. (I'd acutally say it could even be higher)
So the actual percentage of our fans who are eligible to take part in the Trust members poll could quite easily be as low as only ten per cent of our fanbase. ..
And there would be nothing to stop anyone saying 'Scutta told me..' and posting it, so surely better to have personal opinions direct from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
As it is...I'm nor concerned the reasons for the Board not using social media/printed media, as I am now not tied with my hand with my pen tied behind my back.
I hope, that by speaking in favour, I will actually strengthen the 'YES' vote for the Trust, thus putting them in a better position when there is a strong 'yes' vote.
I genuinely think that to vote 'no' by a majority, or even a large percentage 'losing to YES' it will weaken their chances of having supporter ownership handeded to them, if that is the route hcosen by our owners.
And it also needs mentioning that, whatever the outcome of vote, for or against, yes the Trust are the only supporters' organisation as we don't have a 'traditional' supporters' club, but the Trust certainly do not represent the majority of our supporters.
Our average home crowd is about 1,300; and our biggest home gate was almost 2,500. Many fans don't go every game, some maybe only a few, so you could say our fanbase based on those figures is around the 3,000 mark. Though that could be higher or lower, based on your guesswork. (I'd acutally say it could even be higher)
So the actual percentage of our fans who are eligible to take part in the Trust members poll could quite easily be as low as only ten per cent of our fanbase. ..
Yes information I wouldn't be able to put out there...if I had not resigned from the Trust Board.
Scutta
Live Fast Die Bizarre
of course.
Did anyone in favour of building a new stadium stand up in favour for building the current one? Did they also argue in favour stating publicly or privately that there was "no other choice"? If there is genuinely no other choice, then there are no other arguments for or against, so no point in campaigning either way.
mick mccartney
Well-Known Member
Crikey ... I didn't realise Trust membership was so low . unfortunately that will lead to those opposing the club to ridiculing the result . Can the trust not extend the electorate to include non-members with an interest in the club ( e.g. season-ticket holders ) ?
The argument that the trust is not representative is such lazy thinking. The trust represents anybody that pays a nominal sum to be represented. If people choose not to be represented then they can hardly complain. If anyone wants to have a vote on how the trust represents its members then they should join. The level of critical thinking is infuriating. Democracy!
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I think it's a stretch to say we have 2-3000 fans. A lot of those people have only been to a handful of games if that. I doubt the people I heard last week asking 'who's Gavin Rose' have much of an opinion on the ground proposals, or the ones who worked out about ten minutes into the second half why that end had suddenly got busy. Which isn't a criticism but realistically most of the people coming in aren't going to want to get involved in the debate too much. For those that do I think trust membership is hardly a huge barrier.
So when does a fan become a fan?
"Today's attendance is five hundred proper Dulwich fans, one thousand occasional supporters who don't really count...and a bunch of tourists who haven't got a clue."
As far as I'm concerned...everyone who comes through the turnstile at some stage of the season and wants Dulwich to win is a fan.
Is there really a criteria?
I became a Dulwich fan after my first game...
The point I'm making about membership, let's say 20 per cent of fans, thirty per cent of fans, is that the Trust do not speak for all fans, just their members, but because the Trust are the only fan grouping people see them as speaking for our fans. Which, to a large extent, they do. But I know lots of our fans who don't like, or won't join the Trust. And they certainly know which way the team are kicking and the players' names...
Personally, I'd encourage more people to join the Trust...
"Today's attendance is five hundred proper Dulwich fans, one thousand occasional supporters who don't really count...and a bunch of tourists who haven't got a clue."
As far as I'm concerned...everyone who comes through the turnstile at some stage of the season and wants Dulwich to win is a fan.
Is there really a criteria?
I became a Dulwich fan after my first game...
The point I'm making about membership, let's say 20 per cent of fans, thirty per cent of fans, is that the Trust do not speak for all fans, just their members, but because the Trust are the only fan grouping people see them as speaking for our fans. Which, to a large extent, they do. But I know lots of our fans who don't like, or won't join the Trust. And they certainly know which way the team are kicking and the players' names...
Personally, I'd encourage more people to join the Trust...
If we become fan owned these same people are likely to continue to stand on the outside.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I don't think it matters. I'm just saying that realistically most of those people aren't going to be that bothered IMO. If someone wants to vote they can fork over their tenner - you don't need to jump over any other hoops to join - but if there are a load of people who go to the odd game here and there but don't want to get involved then there's no point in chasing them for their views, and in relation to the comments on here I don't think it's fair to say the trust only represents a tiny fraction of supporters because these people aren't included.
Sorry can't agree with this. The Trust represents the membership. That's why we elect them.
Scutta
Live Fast Die Bizarre
well trust cant be really be blamed for when the plans were submitted... thats pushing it now
pompeydunc
Well-Known Member
All those that joined since 1 July ( i.e. prior to poll notification) have had their membership extended for free to equivalent date in 2016. So nobody that may have joined to participate in the poll are paying again.
Similar threads
