Arabtrust - actions speak louder than words

[Dyce_arab]

Well at this point we're just exploring possibilities. It's one thing stirring the pot from here in Spain, it's entirely different to see if there's an appetite for it am ong the local support. Also, before anything like that happens AT should have the chance to defend their position and set out their agenda a little more in the open for non paying members.

Hope they dinna defend themselves in the manner retired has or there will be blood and snotters ahwiys min

[Dyce_arab]

Onyway, this forums too mad fir me im awa back oor to TEKEL TOWERS, nae lunatics on there min.

[PortugueseFrank]

Am i reading this right porto loon? the fans can take over ArabTrust and throw oot the turds in charge the now ?

The trust is one member, one vote as DUSF are so fond of saying.

If an EGM is called and a vote of no confidence is carried by majority in the room and votes by proxy then a new board must be elected.

[PortugueseFrank]

I'm not answering for Frank but I think he's right, yes we can. But to do it we'd need a massive influx of new members in order to dilute their power to resist it. I don't know how many members they have and I don't even know if it's advisable or a real possibility. Worth exploring if only to make them sh1t their smug pants.

It doesn’t necessarily require an influx of great numbers of new members.

You simply need enough existing or new members to call an EGM and then a majority in the room to carry any vote,

So if 40 folk turn up and that’s all that votes then you’d only need 21 to carry any votes.

The trust has always had this remarkably Democratic route that could’ve been utilised at any time.

One member, one vote.

Instead of spending 13k (which will come out of the members direct debits) to set themselves up as pretty much exactly the same kind of legal entity as the trust, the DUSF simply could’ve spent around £750 signing up 50 members to the Trust then take over at an EGM.

Which I think illustrates quite acutely why DUSF seems to me to a missed a rather glaring and much simpler route and makes me a bit wary of their abilities to deliver.

I’m sure they are all smashing and smart guys but did not one of them sit up at their meetings and go “hey guys, could’nt we just take over the Trust? Would save our members a lot of cash”.

Instead 13k spunked reinventing the wheel. That’s ST thinking right there!

I’m reminded of the story (a myth but still) of NASA supposedly spending millions of dollars trying to invent a zero gravity pen, as pens don’t work in space. Millions of taxpayers money invested. What did the soviets do?

Used pencils. Voila.

So why use a zero gravity pen when you can just use a pencil?

[littlebeach]

Except the money spent DID NOT come out of direct debits! The expenses were covered personally by the Founder members!
As for Arabtrust, I believe it has been tainted by its continual act of disappearing up the boards backside and the only alternative was to set up a new entity without any baggage
Arabtrust could and should have had the vision to do what the Foundation are now setting out to do but did not do it. Why?

[PortugueseFrank]

Except the money spent DID NOT come out of direct debits! The expenses were covered personally by the Founder members!
As for Arabtrust, I believe it has been tainted by its continual act of disappearing up the boards backside and the only alternative was to set up a new entity without any baggage
Arabtrust could and should have had the vision to do what the Foundation are now setting out to do but did not do it. Why?

I get what you are saying but that’s still member money that could’ve been put to better use.

Ok, so founder members money pays to setup an organisation who’s very steering group could simply have taken over the Trust board at minimal cost in comparison.

Then made clear their new focus and intention, their break with the perceived issues that see people so against the Trust. Would you have been against this, Little Beach? I’d be keen to know the answer to that.

Would anyone have been against that? And can they explain why?

Dundee United is tainted, so should we just set up a new club “without any baggage” as you put it? No of course not.

And let’s also not forget this important fact:

DUSF is an entity in much the same way as Arabtrust. In that it is one member, one vote.

What happens if the DUSF members all of a sudden decide to elect a board that stands on a platform to work with the current regime at Tannadice or even elects the current members of the Arabtrust board for example after they have stood on a platform to merge DUSF with the Trust?

Democracy being what it is, will this be accepted? Or will fans setup another group at a cost again?

How many groups will be setup when all you needed to do in the first place was to rally your vote and win control of the trust?

[Whitfieldarab]

It might just be that DUSF didn't want to be seen as confrontational from the outset. It might not look good to some that their 1st act as a new body were to usurp AT or maybe the long term goal of the foundation is to fully take over so they don't want to rock the boat.

All ifs and buts though.

[PortugueseFrank]

It’s not confrontational to seek to use democratic levers to change the direction of Arabtrust. It’s the best route to go down imo.

And if the brand is so damaged, one of their first acts could be to “rebrand”.

The more I think about it the more I come back to these points:

13k could’ve been saved by taking control of an organisation already setup to do what DUSF can with the added bonus of an existing seat on the club board (which they could resign if they wanted) and the third largest shareholding in the club.

And we also have to be alert to the fact that DUSF could eventually elect a leadership in favour of and vote by majority of members to provide finances to the club under its current regime.

I think I should point out this isn’t anything against DUSF. Im sure they’re great guys and hearts in right place.

Fans United for example could have done the same. Then they could’ve saved on the yellow scarfs, banners and leaflets.

The point is, any disgruntled groups could seize control of the trust, with all its shares etc, and push their agenda. It would also give the ordinary punter 1 group to get behind rather than 5 or 6.

[Retired Arab]

This loon no the lunatic fa made a right c unt of himself on the ArabTrust facebook no too lang ago?

Dyce is obviously incapable of contributing to this discussion so instead deflects from main issues by being abusive. Typical schoolkid behaviour. Mnnnnn.....So sad!

[Retired Arab]

Retired - genuine questions - are the AT committee aware that you are responding on here? Have you been given authority to or are these your personal opinions?

You're way off the mark here Stoke. You think you know but you've really not got a clue about many issues including who I am. Lots of decent Arabs support the ArabTRUST viewpoint. Just because they don't read or post on UNITED MAD or social media platforms doesn't mean they don't exist. Remember 28,000 went to Hampden just 7 years ago. Think about that number - TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND. And btw I'm certainly not saying they all support ArabTRUST.