 |
Pauly's Page |
Paul Nicholas is a bank manager who is best known on this site for his frequent missives to the press - usually pulling them up on one point or another.
Like many Swans fans, Paul caught the fever in the First Division 70's and after a prolonged spell with no symptoms, thought he was cured.
But then along came Molby and the disease resurfaced.
In his own words ... "and now I got it bad again doctor."
Monday, November 25, 2002I'm just a soul whose intentions are good…………… As sad as it seems, you could almost hear the trowels at work as the Trust's brick wall defences were reinforced after last week's column, and surely this has to be one of the key factors in their relationship with the fans that has to be addressed if they are ever going to be a fans' Trust. I have noticed that a few areas of the Trust site have been updated in the past week, but there were several, what I considered to be, pertinent questions in my article that have remained unanswered. From past experience, I fear they will remain so unless responses are constantly prompted, so in summary, please could I have answers to the following: What issues have the fans been involved in, and how/when are the fans' views sought on issues? What are the benefits of becoming a member of the Trust? What agenda items have the Trust put to the club board? What club board decisions have the Trust disagreed with? From reading some of the responses last week however, there does appear to be some confusion on the part of some Trust members (not just Board members) and maybe even non-members. Any comment made about the Trust that does not constitute a pat on the back, is deemed to castigate them, and is always made by someone who is wholly unsupportive of the organisation. This is certainly not the case, is a rather damning view of the outside world, and is far from the sort of attitude and response that needs to be displayed if bridges - which clearly do not exist at the moment - are to be built between the Trust and the majority of fans. Some on the Trust board have long rebuffed the observations of members and non-members alike who have dared to voice comments, opinions or concerns around any shortcomings in any aspect of the Trust's work. They have constantly rebuked people for having negative views of the board members, or for mentioning the way that they are being perceived by the fans, but to suggest that everyone who makes such comments is wrong is simply ludicrous. If people believe them to be falling short in their representation of the fans in the running of the club, then this is a fundamental issue to be dealt with. They do not, in my own opinion, deal with such issues in a way that will bring the sides closer together. Their own views of others also need to be questioned, as they have as much of a misconception of outsiders as they believe outsiders have of them. The apparent vow of silence by board members merely segregates them further. No one is asking them to, or suggesting that they should, involve them selves in tit-for-tat exchanges through their PC screens, but some form of response, in a manner a little softer than 'official' releases or statements, would be very welcome. The voice of the fans is there to be heard, not just measured by the size of donation, but the isolation of the board itself converts comment to criticism through their decision to ignore much of what is said. When responses are received from the Trust, they are from Leigh or Richard, or as was mentioned last week, Ron and Huw. What is the purpose of the media and press officer members of the board? Can they not function without a microphone or lights, camera, action? As regards those who suggest that I should get involved, well as some will know, I did, so any comments I make here, I feel justified in doing so. I am supportive of all that the Trust stands for, but I will always reserve my right to criticise the way in which the Trust is run if I consider it worthy of criticism. Many comments and opinions have been directed at the Trust in the past twelve months, and even though some have been quite blunt, many have also been accompanied by very constructive suggestions as to how matters could be improved. How well these have been received we may never know. You are free to make your own judgement on that but from my experience and viewpoint, not well. Flippant responses such as 'he seems to have all the answers' achieve nothing. These are the defence mechanisms of an organisation manned in part by people that either can't or won't face up to the realities of the problems they face. No one anywhere is suggesting that they have all or any of the answers. What many do have are suggestions. In their relentless pursuit of the mighty dollar I think the Trust have overlooked the views of the membership and non-members, and have been ignorant of the groundwork needed to gain the support in greater numbers, before beginning the crusade for fund raising. It is this same failing that has resulted in so few 'hands-on' workers being recruited for the cause. The Trust is now synonymous with raising money, and whilst that is a vitally important part of its function, it is not its only role. This has become a little lost and for some fans, trying to find the purpose behind the Trust's existence is beginning to resemble the needle and the stack of hay. This is something that needs to be addressed quickly and properly. The word perception has been thrown about for many months, with numerous people pointing out to the Trust board what the view of the general public is. This view is never accepted, and until it is, then things will not change. Is it a coincidence that certain radio stations do not call on the Trust in all cases to be the voice of the fans, but will contact others, feeling that their views will be more reflective? The constant call to arms is the only response to any constructive criticism. 'What are you doing about it?' or 'I do this for free and in my own time, so don't have a go at me, you get involved' type retorts have been common place and have usually driven the wedge in further. Many people do many things in their own time for no financial reward, and I am sure that we could start a very long thread if we so wished, to demonstrate this. The Trust board and workers have chosen to take on these responsibilities so please do not then throw requests to the masses for a sympathy vote. I do not think that it is any secret that the workload within the Trust is far from evenly spread, and the claim that Trust work is time consuming should only be coming from a certain few. One of my hopes when I was involved was to spread the load and at the same time entice others to take a more active role in a variety of tasks. Having spent some time throwing ideas around in my head, I drew up a blueprint, and presented this at a meeting. The only feedback I had outside of the two people I had discussed it with at the outset, was through a circular e-mail (from a non-board member I would add), dismissing the idea out of hand. I heard no more about it. During my four months of active service I found the reality on the inside to be more intense than my own perception from the outside. The board want others involved, but with many board members, it has to be on their terms, and involvement must relate to the groundwork of cash raising activities. If any business, say a supermarket, is failing in its key objectives, is the answer always to try to recruit more check out operators, or is it possible that the management and structure may be at fault. The thought of certain board members standing down to make way for someone with a greater mix of the skills required to take this forward would be almost unthinkable. If I am wrong on this, then please tell me I am wrong. Their methods of attracting the right type of people are not what they should be, but that stems in part from the paranoia suffered by a few as to the vulnerability of their own positions. We only have to look at the quality of the people who were involved at the inception of the Trust, but are no longer taking active roles in the initiative, to see that something happened to dim their enthusiasm. It is likely that the same series of events is preventing others from throwing their skills and energy into the fray. One new person getting involved with a vision of how to change the structure and workings of the Trust is not enough. It is a little like being invited to a party of 12 people at someone else's house, and the other guests have been there for some time. If you are the last to arrive, and alone, you will almost inevitably be forced to slip into the flow of those who arrived earlier, but if four or five of you turn up together, then there is a greater chance that you will be able to change the mood. It will take an absolute minimum of four people, with a common vision, to infiltrate the dogmatism that prevails. In doing so, and to prevent falling into the same mould as others, any new incumbents would have to be prepared to listen to all options, and assess every idea on its merits. Then maybe, just maybe there would be a more democratic process in place, for this reluctance to listen too closely to other suggestions has been a serious shortcoming in the regime to date. I once heard a comment outside the ground by a Trust board member regarding his determination to have his way on a particular Trust issue; it clearly demonstrated the intransigence that exists with some. The recent elections did not see sufficient people from the outside standing up to be counted. I didn't stand for the very reasons I have mentioned; I did not have the stomach for a fight alone. To those unsuccessful board candidates, and others who may have considered standing but decided against (including me), I feel that more could have been done, by you, to bring your names to the attention of those who would decide the election result. In doing this, well before putting yourselves forward for election, you may have gathered together a sufficiently large quotient of candidates to provide a solid alternative to the current regime, or at least a nucleus of people that would slowly but surely be able to implement the changes necessary. Maybe lessons can be learned, and if people do want changes to be made, then plans will have to be formulated at an early stage in preparation for next year's elections. With six board members up for re-election each year, revolutions are very possible. With the exception of the quarterly newsletter, any other mail through the door from the Trust generally relates to fund raising. I am fully aware of the effort that goes in from a small number of people to make these events successful, but I believe that funds can be raised in many ways other than through raffles and cold donations, to make the whole process more community based, and most importantly, fun. Fund raising can be a lot more appealing if it doesn't always involve signing standing order mandates or selling raffle tickets. So, to look forward a little: Please can the Trust give an indication of its short, medium and long term aims so that fans have a feeling of involvement in what is trying to be achieved. The dream of having a controlling interest in the club may be the ultimate ambition, but to be a little more realistic, there are many more objectives that could be set and achieved along the way that would generate greater involvement of the fans, away from their bank accounts. Having the fans involved in these ambitions at the outset would also improve participation levels I am sure. To gain a controlling interest, the Trust would have to secure a majority of the available shares in the club, and have the ability to manage the club on a day-to-day basis possibly, facing all the traumas and inherent problems that would accompany this achievement. To capture sufficient shares, against the authorised share capital of 1,000,000 x £1 shares, the Trust would have to inject a total of £500,001 into the club. On first year performance, which has seen an excellent achievement of £50,000 injected, this would take another 9 years. That in itself is not unreasonable, but the thought of the constant drip of standing order requests and raffle ticket books in that time does not exactly set the heart a-racing. The commercial side of the Trust needs revamping, as success in that field to date has been negligible at best, but in reality, non-existent. If private fund raising methods can be made more attractive, the appetite of the public will increase and then our shareholding, which at best at the moment prevents another rape and pillage exercise by a tyrant, can be allowed to grow on a regular basis. We should not forget, either, that there may be people out there with a financial interest in this club who would not wish to see the Trust have a casting vote on issues affecting it, and as a Trust and shareholder, we should be kept advised on a regular basis of our percentage shareholding, and volume of capital issued, so that we have a clear picture of our financial stake in proceedings. It is not necessary to divulge the names of other shareholders, but if someone was to achieve majority status in advance of our attempts, then shouldn't we be told? If these comments are again seen as wholly destructive, and met with a wall of silence, then I can do little about it, but sometime soon, things will have to change. … Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood. If anyone has any feedback to give me, I'd love to hear from you at pauly@scfc.co.uk You can comment on this article by visiting the guestbook Previous articles:
Click here to go back to main page
|