Breaking News Trust asked by club to contribute to tour AGAIN

[TrueBlue]

I'm sorry guys, I just really don't see the problem. Perhaps I'm being thick.

May 2012 - The Trust liason notes as posted by Cricko indicate that the club hopes the Trust will assist with financing the pre-season tour as they did before.

June - The club organises the tour and arranges sponsorship.

July - The club asks the Trust if it will help with finance to the tune of £5K.

Now to me the issue isn't whether the Trust says yes or no; I just don't get why various trust members are getting so upset about the club actually asking.

Is there any real justification for saying "No" other than to somehow be seen to punish the club or, more specifically, RM, for having the audacity to ask now rather than putting a written request in 3 months ago, preferably in triplicate and on grovelling knees, begging?

It strikes me that some people are looking at this as though the club is a naughty child asking for extra pocket money.

I repeat - the motto is "To help, not hinder."

Thats because thats what they ****ing are - they said they had things covered they did not - **** em

Time to get tough

 

[united we stand]

I'm sorry guys, I just really don't see the problem. Perhaps I'm being thick.

May 2012 - The Trust liason notes as posted by Cricko indicate that the club hopes the Trust will assist with financing the pre-season tour as they did before.

June - The club organises the tour and arranges sponsorship.

July - The club asks the Trust if it will help with finance to the tune of £5K.

Now to me the issue isn't whether the Trust says yes or no; I just don't get why various trust members are getting so upset about the club actually asking.

Is there any real justification for saying "No" other than to somehow be seen to punish the club or, more specifically, RM, for having the audacity to ask now rather than putting a written request in 3 months ago, preferably in triplicate and on grovelling knees, begging?

It strikes me that some people are looking at this as though the club is a naughty child asking for extra pocket money.

I repeat - the motto is "To help, not hinder."

• The club asked the trust in June
• The Trust said no
• The club is asking again - the Trust's board is now undecided

thats my understanding

Why the Trust has goine from a 'no' to a split vote is unclear to me , and as I have said earlier it would be usefull to know before deciding which way to vote

 

[jerseyshrimper]

I voted no a few more friendlies in this country would not have cost a fraction of the cost for this overseas jaunt

 

[Jam_Man]

• The club asked the trust in June
  [*]The Trust said no
• The club is asking again - the Trust's board is now undecided

thats my understanding

Why the Trust has goine from a 'no' to a split vote is unclear to me , and as I have said earlier it would be usefull to know before deciding which way to vote

Where does it say they said no ? Where does it say the Trust are now split?

Wht Cricko posted just said GL hoped they would be able to, it doesnt say either way what the possibility was.

They have therefore asked again.

I really dont see why there is outrage on this. Im with FBM, the trust is there to help and this seems a decent way to do so.

 

[Jam_Man]

I voted no a few more friendlies in this country would not have cost a fraction of the cost for this overseas jaunt

Sturrock likes to get the team away as he said prior to the Scotland trip.

Getting the team together for a set period can only be good for team spirit and bonding.

 

[TrueBlue]

Just a correction on my earlier post when I said the trust attempted to invest that was the wrong choice of words, the club wanted help and our price was a seat on the board.

Just to clear that up

Oh also I speak for myself not for the trust - they are my own personal views

 

[ldnfatso]

They should not have booked it if:
1. They could not afford it themselves
or
2. They had no guarantee the cash would be coming from the trust!

No, is my answer. Make sure the players are paid all season long would be my priority and play more local teams if nesessary!

 

[The Late One]

Sturrock likes to get the team away as he said prior to the Scotland trip.

Getting the team together for a set period can only be good for team spirit and bonding.

Now I know people say that the pre season trip (playing at one ground is NOT a tour) last season helped get us a whisker away from promotion (maybe it did) but I wonder if someone could find out where the promoted teams from league two played pre season, if these "tours" help so much. The manager likes the idea - paid holiday, who wouldn't!!

As for team spirit and bonding - Tilly never needed a week away for that !!

As for 10k to the youth team, how many players have come through the youth team and played 1st team football since the Trust started putting money into them. Also how long have the Trust been doing so and how much has been invested in that time ??? Now if we were Crewe I could see the benefits...

 

[Beefy]

I'm sorry guys, I just really don't see the problem. Perhaps I'm being thick.

May 2012 - The Trust liason notes as posted by Cricko indicate that the club hopes the Trust will assist with financing the pre-season tour as they did before.

June - The club organises the tour and arranges sponsorship.

July - The club asks the Trust if it will help with finance to the tune of £5K.

Now to me the issue isn't whether the Trust says yes or no; I just don't get why various trust members are getting so upset about the club actually asking.

Is there any real justification for saying "No" other than to somehow be seen to punish the club or, more specifically, RM, for having the audacity to ask now rather than putting a written request in 3 months ago, preferably in triplicate and on grovelling knees, begging?

It strikes me that some people are looking at this as though the club is a naughty child asking for extra pocket money.

I repeat - the motto is "To help, not hinder."

Again, why doesn't the Trust just write a cheque to the Club for every penny in their bank account?

 

[jerseyshrimper]

Sturrock likes to get the team away as he said prior to the Scotland trip.

Getting the team together for a set period can only be good for team spirit and bonding.

I understand that but still no need to go abroad, i had the good fortune to go up to see the Scotland tour and enjoyed it but if the club do not have the money to finance it then they should not be doing it.

 

[united we stand]

Where does it say they said no ? Where does it say the Trust are now split?

Wht Cricko posted just said GL hoped they would be able to, it doesnt say either way what the possibility was.

They have therefore asked again.

I really dont see why there is outrage on this. Im with FBM, the trust is there to help and this seems a decent way to do so.

Below is from the Trust , the pieces in red are in answer to your direct questions, The trust is now split is a direct quote, the email does not say they said no, but if you join the dots to me it says that the Trust has already said no once


The Shrimpers Trust were approached several weeks back (so they asked In June before the tour was anmnounced) to see if we were prepared to make a donation towards the pre-season tour as we did last year. We said at the time that it would depend on two things 1) The expected costs and 2) whether the committee would agree to a further reduction in our assets again this year.The club were to get back to us on the first. Later at committee it was agreed that we should maintain our funds for this year (circa 50k) and not consider any donations that could not be budgeted out of expected income. This suggested approximately 10-12K of funds. We subsequently agreed to donate 10K to the Youth squad as a continuation of previous years. So by definition they above says to me that we are not going to invest in the tour as they want to maintain funds at circa £50k and investing in the tour would not reduce this amount, this is backed up by the comment in the third from last paragraph ‘ we should refuse as we have made our stance clear
Last week the club announced the pre-season tour trip to Spain with some sponsorship (10K) and asked us whether we could contribute to the remainder.
The Committee are now split - (quote- the committee are now split) I several believe we should refuse as we have made our stance clear - several others think that the club could really do with the cash now and that reducing our funds further should be considered.
We would like to know what our members think before we make our decision and would ask you to complete the survey using the link below.

If you require any further information or have any questions you would like to ask before voting please contact Trust Chairman, Paul FitzGerald

 

[southend4ever]

In my mind surely the club should liaise with the Trust prior to organising the tour and confirm what funding would be available. I don't know the working relationship between the club and the Trust but this could possibly be taking the biscuit a bit from the club.

 

[ldnfatso]

Sturrock likes to get the team away as he said prior to the Scotland trip.

Getting the team together for a set period can only be good for team spirit and bonding.

Yeah, Rohan Ricketts enjoyed himself!

 

[fbm]

Below is from the Trust , the pieces in red are in answer to your direct questions, The trust is now split is a direct quote, the email does not say they said no, but if you join the dots to me it says that the Trust has already said no once


The Shrimpers Trust were approached several weeks back (so they asked In June before the tour was anmnounced) to see if we were prepared to make a donation towards the pre-season tour as we did last year. We said at the time that it would depend on two things 1) The expected costs and 2) whether the committee would agree to a further reduction in our assets again this year.The club were to get back to us on the first. Later at committee it was agreed that we should maintain our funds for this year (circa 50k) and not consider any donations that could not be budgeted out of expected income. This suggested approximately 10-12K of funds. We subsequently agreed to donate 10K to the Youth squad as a continuation of previous years. So by definition they above says to me that we are not going to invest in the tour as they want to maintain funds at circa £50k and investing in the tour would not reduce this amount, this is backed up by the comment in the third from last paragraph ‘ we should refuse as we have made our stance clear
Last week the club announced the pre-season tour trip to Spain with some sponsorship (10K) and asked us whether we could contribute to the remainder.
The Committee are now split - (quote- the committee are now split) I several believe we should refuse as we have made our stance clear - several others think that the club could really do with the cash now and that reducing our funds further should be considered.
We would like to know what our members think before we make our decision and would ask you to complete the survey using the link below.

If you require any further information or have any questions you would like to ask before voting please contact Trust Chairman, Paul FitzGerald

Ok, thanks for this.

For me, this says the following -

1) Club asks if Trust will contribute to tour.
2) Trust response is that it is partly dependent on how much it is - club says they will revert.
3) Prior to club reverting and without the clubs knowledge, the Trust decides not to contribute for perfectly valid reasons.
4) Club arranges tour and reverts to Trust with a figure they hope the Trust can contribute.

Is that about right?

If so, then I am even more baffled as to the outrage.

The club has done something perfectly properly and the tour is not dependent on the Trusts money. They have secured sponsorship and it will go ahead anyway but if the Trust want to contribute then it would be nice.

The trust has made a perfectly reasonable decision not to contribute but, again perfectly reasonably, some have changed their mind in the interim period and it is - quite rightly - being put to a vote.

No-one has done anything wrong or underhand and no one is doing anything in the wrong order or acting improperly.

southend4ever - surely the club only needs to liaise with the Trust prior to organising the tour if the Trusts money was going to be crucuial to the tour taking place. It sounds to me as though the club are having the tour regardless and have said to the Trust something like "Look, we broached this a couple of months ago and you said you'd think about contributing to the Tour. We've got sponsorship for £10k and if you could donate £5k towards the balance it would be very welcomed."

Nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion. The club don't need to be answerable to the Trust regarding their arrangements. If the Trust doesn't want to help, then don't. It's quite simple. Keep all the money and income and call it the "Potentially new SUFC club if SUFC goes bust Trust." The club then never need to ask as they know it will be refused, and the motto could change to "To stash the cash in case Ron takes us to the wall".

 

[Jam_Man]

Below is from the Trust , the pieces in red are in answer to your direct questions, The trust is now split is a direct quote, the email does not say they said no, but if you join the dots to me it says that the Trust has already said no once


The Shrimpers Trust were approached several weeks back (so they asked In June before the tour was anmnounced) to see if we were prepared to make a donation towards the pre-season tour as we did last year. We said at the time that it would depend on two things 1) The expected costs and 2) whether the committee would agree to a further reduction in our assets again this year.The club were to get back to us on the first. Later at committee it was agreed that we should maintain our funds for this year (circa 50k) and not consider any donations that could not be budgeted out of expected income. This suggested approximately 10-12K of funds. We subsequently agreed to donate 10K to the Youth squad as a continuation of previous years. So by definition they above says to me that we are not going to invest in the tour as they want to maintain funds at circa £50k and investing in the tour would not reduce this amount, this is backed up by the comment in the third from last paragraph ‘ we should refuse as we have made our stance clear
Last week the club announced the pre-season tour trip to Spain with some sponsorship (10K) and asked us whether we could contribute to the remainder.
The Committee are now split - (quote- the committee are now split) I several believe we should refuse as we have made our stance clear - several others think that the club could really do with the cash now and that reducing our funds further should be considered.
We would like to know what our members think before we make our decision and would ask you to complete the survey using the link below.

If you require any further information or have any questions you would like to ask before voting please contact Trust Chairman, Paul FitzGerald

Thanks for the info.

Again I agree with fbm I still dont see the outrage. They have approached the Trust and asked if they are interested in sponsoring the tour.

Theres nothing wrong with that, if the trust vote no then thats sorted. No need for the indignation being shown on here.

 

[united we stand]

Ok, thanks for this.

For me, this says the following -

1) Club asks if Trust will contribute to tour.
2) Trust response is that it is partly dependent on how much it is - club says they will revert.
3) Prior to club reverting and without the clubs knowledge, the Trust decides not to contribute for perfectly valid reasons.
4) Club arranges tour and reverts to Trust with a figure they hope the Trust can contribute.

Is that about right?

If so, then I am even more baffled as to the outrage.

The club has done something perfectly properly and the tour is not dependent on the Trusts money. They have secured sponsorship and it will go ahead anyway but if the Trust want to contribute then it would be nice.

The trust has made a perfectly reasonable decision not to contribute but, again perfectly reasonably, some have changed their mind in the interim period and it is - quite rightly - being put to a vote.

No-one has done anything wrong or underhand and no one is doing anything in the wrong order or acting improperly.

southend4ever - surely the club only needs to liaise with the Trust prior to organising the tour if the Trusts money was going to be crucuial to the tour taking place. It sounds to me as though the club are having the tour regardless and have said to the Trust something like "Look, we broached this a couple of months ago and you said you'd think about contributing to the Tour. We've got sponsorship for £10k and if you could donate £5k towards the balance it would be very welcomed."

Nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion. The club don't need to be answerable to the Trust regarding their arrangements. If the Trust doesn't want to help, then don't. It's quite simple. Keep all the money and income and call it the "Potentially new SUFC club if SUFC goes bust Trust." The club then never need to ask as they know it will be refused, and the motto could change to "To stash the cash in case Ron takes us to the wall".

I don't know any more than you do, having said that I agree with all of your points except for the last couple of lines in your last paragraph and that for the TRUST to say we should refuse as we have made our stance clear' implies to me that they have already told the club no. If not what does it mean ? . Not that I think this is a important point in all of this.

 

[united we stand]

Thanks for the info.

Again I agree with fbm I still dont see the outrage. They have approached the Trust and asked if they are interested in sponsoring the tour.

Theres nothing wrong with that, if the trust vote no then thats sorted. No need for the indignation being shown on here.

not a hint of outrage from me on any of my posts on this subject

 

[Beefy]

I'm not sure why the word "outrage" is being thrown around. I'm not seeing much outrage. I'm seeing people give decent and valid reasons for voting no.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

I'm not sure why the word "outrage" is being thrown around. I'm not seeing much outrage. I'm seeing people give decent and valid reasons for voting no.

Outrageous

 

[Beefy]

I'M SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW :angry: