No elections for Supporters’ Trust board after just five apply

The Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust has confirmed it will not be holding elections for positions on its board after receiving just five applicants.

Despite extending the registration process until July 4, just five of the 2,537-strong membership submitted a statement wishing to stand as a candidate.

That figure falls short of the number required to hold an election and so the five – Ian Bridge, Mike Smith, Maggie Tetlow, Terence Rigby and Daniel Izza – have now been accepted immediately as board members, in accordance with the published model rules.

The process has been undertaken by independent bodies, Electoral Reform Services and Supporters’ Direct.

An AGM is in the pipeline but the BWFCST board have agreed to answer questions from readers of The Bolton News to address any concerns members may have about the process or the future of the trust.

Source

KP why? Sluffy will be on the rampage again 

I thought it might cause a stir.

Interesting point. I'm a member of the ST and got no paperwork AT ALL about the elction or candidates or even how to nominate someone. I definitely won't be renewing because I think the ST has already burned all the bridges it could have built between club and fans and both Ken and Mike now deem it a total irrelevance. The whole thing has been amateurishly handled from its inception by a group of self serving egotists who made Michael Gove look trustworthy.

karlypants wrote:The Bolton Wanderers Supporters’ Trust has confirmed it will not be holding elections for positions on its board after receiving just five applicants.

Despite extending the registration process until July 4, just five of the 2,537-strong membership submitted a statement wishing to stand as a candidate.

That figure falls short of the number required to hold an election and so the five – Ian Bridge, Mike Smith, Maggie Tetlow, Terence Rigby and Daniel Izza – have now been accepted immediately as board members, in accordance with the published model rules.

The process has been undertaken by independent bodies, Electoral Reform Services and Supporters’ Direct.

An AGM is in the pipeline but the BWFCST board have agreed to answer questions from readers of The Bolton News to address any concerns members may have about the process or the future of the trust.

Source

Norpig wrote:KP why? Sluffy will be on the rampage again  

Yes I know but I do want to raise two points in respect of the above article -

First it states they have just over 2,500 members - compare that with their official tweet of 30th May, in the run up to the end of (what was thought at the time) the ST's registration deadline -

"With only one hour to go,we've just hit 350 for the weekend to take us to 3267 fully paid up members, Don't miss out, Join now #bwfc #bwfcst".

Now that is a huge discrepancy of 730 'false' members or approximately a claim of a third more members than they actually had (plus the membership window opened for a further month more after the 3267 fully paid up members claim was made).

Staggeringly misleading.

Something here stinks!


My second point is why are they seeking to issue communications via their long term bum chum and self styled champion of the ST himself, Marc Iles?  

My point being they have their own twitter and Facebook accounts and their own website - so why the need to 'hide' behind anyone else - Christ one of the elected Board Maggie Tetlow was even appointed on to the Steering Group originally to replace the (airbrushed out of history) Johnny Eckersley as the ST's 'marketing guru'!

Seems very much to me they've put in place a 'fire wall' in the shape of Iles to filter out all those awkward and difficult questions they clearly don't wish to answer.


Aren't these people the ones whose reason for being in setting up the ST in the first place to seek communication, openness, honesty and transparency from the club owners?

They clearly don't think to seem it applies to them as well!

What irony and double standards.

Hypocrites.

Sluffy wrote:

First it states they have just over 2,500 members - compare that with their official tweet of 30th May, in the run up to the end of (what was thought at the time) the ST's registration deadline -

"With only one hour to go,we've just hit 350 for the weekend to take us to 3267 fully paid up members, Don't miss out, Join now #bwfc #bwfcst".

Bare in mind that U16's don't pay, how many of the 2500+ actually paid

whatsgoingon wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

First it states they have just over 2,500 members - compare that with their official tweet of 30th May, in the run up to the end of (what was thought at the time) the ST's registration deadline -

"With only one hour to go,we've just hit 350 for the weekend to take us to 3267 fully paid up members, Don't miss out, Join now #bwfc #bwfcst".

Bare in mind that U16's don't pay, how many of the 2500+ actually paid

Well their official tweet of the 1st June claimed this -

"Big thank you to all those who have signed up to #bwfcst taking our membership past the 3000 mark & who are now eligible to Vote next month".

But the independent elections officer stated something entirely different on reporting the outcome of the nomination process, namely there were ONLY 2,522 to stand for election (and which implies vote in them to) and a further 15 people joined in the retrospective month extension for registration bringing the eligible total of people able to vote to 2,537.

http://www.bwfcst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EMG-Statement-09.07.16.pdf

Thus totally contradicting the ST's own official tweeted statement.

Maybe the discrepancy were people under voting age BUT that is not was stated (nor ever since corrected to this date) by the ST.

A misrepresented statement therefore at best or a fraudulent one at worst.

If I were the ST I would be offering to refund the membership money of everybody who joined from the moment the 30th May tweet was sent out (probably not that many but it would include the 15 who joined during the month extended membership period).

If they did not want their money returned then I would donate an equal sum to a non related charity to the ST (possibly Derian House) to put things right as best I could.