WST EGM Q&A - 8pm

[baz]

Further thoughts:

This motion currently has 90 signatures. That’s not a lot so the things up for debate here aren’t cutting through. I can be accused of trying to derail it (oh for the power to do so!) but if that were the case I’d just shut up and let it fizzle out. There is stuff here that needs real discussion; I don’t want this flattened, I want it done properly and honestly.

And I don’t know any board members, volunteers, staff or anybody else doing work at the club.

[welshian]

Originally Posted by baz

Further thoughts:

This motion currently has 90 signatures. That’s not a lot so the things up for debate here aren’t cutting through. I can be accused of trying to derail it (oh for the power to do so!) but if that were the case I’d just shut up and let it fizzle out. There is stuff here that needs real discussion; I don’t want this flattened, I want it done properly and honestly.

And I don’t know any board members, volunteers, staff or anybody else doing work at the club.

The troll factory working overtime. Hope the clubs not paying for 'his' services. Roubles anyone?

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by baz

Further thoughts:

This motion currently has 90 signatures. That’s not a lot so the things up for debate here aren’t cutting through. I can be accused of trying to derail it (oh for the power to do so!) but if that were the case I’d just shut up and let it fizzle out. There is stuff here that needs real discussion; I don’t want this flattened, I want it done properly and honestly.

And I don’t know any board members, volunteers, staff or anybody else doing work at the club.

Originally Posted by welshian

The troll factory working overtime. Hope the clubs not paying for 'his' services. Roubles anyone?

I disagree with Baz on this particular issue but I genuinely can’t see how ANYONE can think he’s trolling given the comments he’s made here.

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by baz

If you think I’ve got an agenda then feel free to tell everyone what it is. But you won’t be able to.

That a motion wouldn’t have passed in the summer shows the weakness of this. The club’s structure, and its burning issues (DSA, football philosophy, money) were exactly the same as now. Only now the team isn’t winning. So that just shows this is reactive mainly to poor form, barely a reason for an EGM when the process existed when that poor form wasn’t there.

Baz, am I right in thinking that the only motion that has ever been passed at an AGM without the support of the board was the second viewing platform one? The Trust’s response to this motion passing has been so half-hearted and shambolic that one of the two people behind the motion left the Trust, while the other has said the Trust has made him feel less valuable than an empty plastic seat. The response to this motion passing massively damaged my faith in the idea of using motions at an AGM and, while I can’t be sure, I believe it had a similar effect on others. For me, that’s a key reason why this wasn’t put forward in the summer.

(For avoidance of doubt, I don’t know who’s behind the EGM account, I don’t know any club board members and I know 1 Trust board member who I rate really highly despite my issues with things overall.)

[Rob]

Originally Posted by baz

Further thoughts:

This motion currently has 90 signatures. That’s not a lot so the things up for debate here aren’t cutting through.

That is roughly 25% of the numbers that appear to be the voting membership.

I have posted about poor turnouts before, and that 25% could be members who dont vote, or could be members who do vote, or a mix.

I think it is true that the EGM is not cutting through, but also WST votes as a whole don't as you say 'cut through', and that is reflected in the huge numbers who don't engage in the democratic process.

To me, that then feeds the 'sell the club to anyone' stuff.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Jaded

Baz, am I right in thinking that the only motion that has ever been passed at an AGM without the support of the board was the second viewing platform one? The Trust’s response to this motion passing has been so half-hearted and shambolic that one of the two people behind the motion left the Trust, while the other has said the Trust has made him feel less valuable than an empty plastic seat. The response to this motion passing massively damaged my faith in the idea of using motions at an AGM and, while I can’t be sure, I believe it had a similar effect on others. For me, that’s a key reason why this wasn’t put forward in the summer.

(For avoidance of doubt, I don’t know who’s behind the EGM account, I don’t know any club board members and I know 1 Trust board member who I rate really highly despite my issues with things overall.)

The lack of progress on the second platform was a concern. It is now under construction (off site)
The stadium is dated and there are problems with accessibility. Providing spaces is relatively simple but getting those spaces under cover and inclusive is not a simple task.
Proposals have to be scrutinised and pass Building Control and get a health and Safety approval. any platform at a height of 2 metres from ground level requires a lift and alternative exit arrangements. Sight lines need to be considered and Disabled toilet facilities provided.
Personally think it's taken too long to come to fruition and still not convinced it's the right solution.
Credit to Phil Salmon for taking this on board but I don't think anyone is going to be satisfied with the outcome. I trust that most are aware that the platform is intended, in the first instance, for opposition supporters and any empty spaces can be taken up by our own wheelchair bound fans.

[WrexhamO]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

The lack of progress on the second platform was a concern. It is now under construction (off site)
The stadium is dated and there are problems with accessibility. Providing spaces is relatively simple but getting those spaces under cover and inclusive is not a simple task.
Proposals have to be scrutinised and pass Building Control and get a health and Safety approval. any platform at a height of 2 metres from ground level requires a lift and alternative exit arrangements. Sight lines need to be considered and Disabled toilet facilities provided.
Personally think it's taken too long to come to fruition and still not convinced it's the right solution.
Credit to Phil Salmon for taking this on board but I don't think anyone is going to be satisfied with the outcome. I trust that most are aware that the platform is intended, in the first instance, for opposition supporters and any empty spaces can be taken up by our own wheelchair bound fans.

As far as I know, no sightlines studies have been undertaken.

My son showed me a YouTube vlog of the Stockport match.
It is quite alarming in every aspect for those who might intend to use the new platform.
Away fans surging into the area after Stockport scored, bottles flying back and to. And Stockport fans standing in the lower Yale which I feel could cause significant sightline problems.

[Ruabon Red]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

The lack of progress on the second platform was a concern. It is now under construction (off site)
The stadium is dated and there are problems with accessibility. Providing spaces is relatively simple but getting those spaces under cover and inclusive is not a simple task.
Proposals have to be scrutinised and pass Building Control and get a health and Safety approval. any platform at a height of 2 metres from ground level requires a lift and alternative exit arrangements. Sight lines need to be considered and Disabled toilet facilities provided.
Personally think it's taken too long to come to fruition and still not convinced it's the right solution.
Credit to Phil Salmon for taking this on board but I don't think anyone is going to be satisfied with the outcome. I trust that most are aware that the platform is intended, in the first instance, for opposition supporters and any empty spaces can be taken up by our own wheelchair bound fans.

It isn't the correct solution, which is so disappointing given the expertise the club has to hand in the DSA.

These guys are the real deal, they're nationally recognised as being so, yet their views are ignored.

It beggars belief, it really does.

[WrexhamO]

Originally Posted by WrexhamO

As far as I know, no sightlines studies have been undertaken.

My son showed me a YouTube vlog of the Stockport match.
It is quite alarming in every aspect for those who might intend to use the new platform.
Away fans surging into the area after Stockport scored, bottles flying back and to. And Stockport fans standing in the lower Yale which I feel could cause significant sightline problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVriBa9i6MA

About 6 minutes in...