will deek be oot?

Vote on his continued membership tonight

So you want him to continue?

nah, what I mean is that there is a vote on his continued membership, thats all.

Only joking.

Am worried Broon will be booted!

DB wasnt expelled, motion received a majority backing but not the necessary two thirds majority.

I cannot believe that,is there that many brown fans in the trust

Well it appears the CLOWN was not booted out of the Trust - how on earth can any Trust member not vote to get him out I do not know - but then even a moron must have other moron friends - those who did not vote him out can feel proud that they were the first to be involved in the demise of the club - I hope you are proud of yourselves - and may I suggest you obtain a brain transplant with an ameboea to try and improve your IQ.

I was afraid that would be the result tonight. A two thirds majority is quite an obstacle to overcome. It would have depended on the number attending and be sure DB would have had all his supporters there so the smaller the attendance the greater his chance of success. It was definately no walkover as some had predicted.

Now the trust has a member who hates their guts and will do anything he can to block their declared objectives, So much for democracy! (that'll bring some comments).

It does not really matter though as this was only a side issue, the objective is to get Brown out of the club. The only drawback is it will have boosted his confidence and make him even more determined to stay. But go he will!

It needs a concerted action to get the means together.

So the "TRUST MEMBERS BACK BROWN", well that is how it looks on paper. I agree that a two-thirds majority is hard to overcome but christ do they not see what he has done to the club. broon will have a big smile now!!! BEWARE BROON !!!!!!!!!!!

There were 35 members present. 20 voted to kick him out along with 3 proxy votes. 7 proxy votes were cast opposing the motion.

So just over half supported the motion. If so many felt strongly about it then why did so few bother to even send proxies?

I feel that Derrick may be quite dissapointed with the vote, as it would have been another tool to beat the trust with, had the motion been carried.

And yes that was democracy in action. Our MSP Christine May even turned up but didn't bring the house down thankfully

I agree that the real issue is the removal of Brown from his position as chair of EFFC.

Down with Brown.

Be under no illusion, the people present who did not vote for the motion are not necessarily Derrick supporters, but are mainly people who perhaps did not see any advantage to the Trust in his removal.

Had Derrick been removed do you really think it would lead to regime change at EFFC?

Derrick is on the ropes just now, only a matter of time til his demise as Chairman.

One disappointing aspect was where a former Trust board member tried to launch a personal attack against the proposer of the motion, this was rightly stopped in its tracks.

Just re-read Allan Duthie's last email about the egm where it states "Can I also remind you that any proxy votes must be with us by tomorrow latest or they will not be included in the ballot.".

This was sent out March 7th, meaning proxy votes had to be in by March 8th.

Now I may be incorrect here, but were some proxy votes not delivered at the start of the meeting for inclusion and if this was the case does this not make the vote invalid?

There were two lines of debate last night: 1) Has Derrick broken the rules? 2) Would kicking him out be detremental to the Trust meeting its objectives?

I think the answers are clearly Yes & Yes - making the issue a difficult one to vote on.

The floor was given for anyone to make comment in support of Brown - no support was given.

Also, Christine May and Eugene were having a battle to see who could use the fanciest words. I gained 2 new words!

Did I use a fancy word??? What was it as at my age I forget!

I think previous posts have made the issue clear and it's disappointing yet again to see people being vilified for voting a particular way.

It was not an easy decision. As one of those who spoke - now there's a surpise - I made my view absolutely clear. I do not think it is right that DB should stay a member of the Trust and that if I were in his position I would resign. But I also try to look at what is in the best long term interests of the Trust and my own view is that we would lose rather than gain if we threw him out.

My reasoning is that every day he remains a member it allows us the opportuntity to remind people through the media etc how hypocritical he is. On the other hand if we remove him he can have himself portrayed as some sort of victim and the Trust would then be (unfairly) accused of not allowing differences of opinion etc.

If DB had any sense of ethics or honour he would resign. It's not in the Trust's interests to make that decision for him.

According to your argument Eugene you must have voted for him to stay.

A lot of fine reasoning here from I_10 and Eugene, but it fails to mask the bottom line, which I am afraid is screaming out to any outsiders looking in.

That is: East Fife supporters, and the Trust, want Brown removed as chairman. But they can't even remove him from their own organisation.

There are issues of hypocrisy, moral high ground, honour etc which can be cast up to put a gloss on last night's vote. We're kidding only ourselves if we think that there is a silver lining to this.

Brown has acted against the interests of the Trust - and ergo the club - at every opportunity. And yet we let him stay because he might bleat about being a victim. That will have a particularly hollow ring to all those who haven't just arrived from Mars. How about, in football terms, concentrating on attack rather than defence? Stop playing the game on his terms.

I didn't know anything about this until I read this thread. Says it all really. When's the last time mail was sent out to trust members? I renewed my membership months ago, and I've heard f*** all since!

Can I perhaps enlighten some of the anonymous posters who probably were that concerned re this vote they neither attended the meeting or proxied their vote There was a vote taken on support for the motion to remove Brown, this fell because it didn't have the required support identified in the memorandum and articles which the 'Trust is governed by. Even taking into account Gof's concerns re proxy votes. Only 20 out of 35 present voted for the motion so what ever way you look at it. It didn't attract the required percentage to carry the motion.

So what now people who didn't vote for the motion are 'traitors' 'brown lovers' all the usual vitriol delivered from nameless heros. Well I dislike 'Browns Chairmanship' I dislike intently what has been allowed to happen at Bayview. I have protested on the 'mound', I have written in a personal capacity to politicians, Fife Council the media. I have asked Brown to resign at meetings. I have asked him to resign face to face. But now I am a Brown lover because I didn't vote for the motion.
I didn't vote for Brown because I think he is wonderful. I voted against the motion because I believe the trust to be the answer. And any negativity generated by supporting the motion would have been levelled at the trust not at Brown. I post this as an individual and now await the villification that will surely pour forth on MY vote.

Flabbergasted! by previous post. That's all I can say at present.

I proxied my vote in the interests of the trust members showing that they were not apathetic to the EGM.
I actually did not have a strong opinion one way or another about Brown remaining a trust member, and can see both lines of thought, for and against.
Hopefully what emerged from the meeting was a sense of a democratic body, debating honestly and with integrity, as opposed to the ludicrous, bloody-minded style of directorship along at Bayview.
The danger of the motion was always that it would become divisive. Hopefully this will not be the case.

I attended the meeting and did not vote to support the motion.

Do I think Derrick is doing well as chairman - No
Do I think he should step down - Yes
Do I think his opinions are contrary to the interests of the Trust - Yes
Do I think he should resign from the Trust - Yes
Do I think he deserves to be removed as a member - Yes
Would such an action serve the interests of the Trust - NO

What would have been gained - We kick him out and then what? - We could be perceived as being merely an anti brown organisation, and Derrick could be portrayed as a victim - laughable I know, but possible.

This was an issue where there was a free vote, the Trust board had differing opinions as did the members. Ultimately, only 20 members felt strongly enough to turn up and support the motion, along with 3 proxies.

I note that "Go for it" is flabbergasted. Well I take it by that reply that either "go for it" isnt a member or he didnt attend. If you dont like it folks, join the Trust and next time there is an issue you feel strongly enough about, turn up and vote, it is one member, one vote, completely open and democratic.

We can't allow this to be divisive. My motion was never intended to be so.

It wasn't carried, so we must now move on.

The Trust is the most important thing in all this and we don't want to give Brown any ammunition that the fans argue amongst themselves and the Turst looks weakened.

Whilst I'm obviously disappointed at the result of the vote (and alarmed at how ex Trust Board member Alan Henderson clearly views the protestors), I fully undertstand why those that voted against it thought it may be detrimental to the Trust.

What we need to do now is to move forward, starting with next Thursday's meeting at the Wellesley.

GoF

Re the meeting next week - will this be a "sticky" as many people may not know about it.

On a personal level, I thought you put your case across very well last night, and didnt rise to the bait when you were blamed personally for any bad language etc uttered by protestors.

It will be a sticky once I've spoken to one of the organsisers today.

Personal attacks on anyone don't help which is why I didn't say anything on those points last night. I also don't want to see Alan Henderson and anyone else that spoke and voted against the motion vilified and abused on here.

We have to move forward now and act as a united front on the key issue of getting East Fife back successful.

I went along to the meeting last night fully intending to vote for the motion. Having listened to the both sides of the debate I decided that kicking Brown out would not serve the best interests of the Trust. My Partner Pauline voted for the motion, I didn't! Our views differed but that was it(atleast until we got home, will show anyone the bruises if they want!!) IMO removing Brown from the Trust would not have speeded his removal from the Football Club, he is enjoying the publicity & removal from the Trust would have been a bigger story for the Press than the actual result.
Actually thinking bout going to watch a Junior Cup quarter final tomorrow rather than going to Bayview, can't believe how apathetic I've become over the last 4 months!!!

Where is the Junior game Liam?

The request for proxies to be in for a given date was merely to avoid any problem caused by delays in the post. I think it is accepted practice,and I have not found anything contrary in the Trust rules,that proxies can be accepted on the night. In addition to this the rules state that "any question as to the validity of a proxy is to be determined by the Chair of the meeting whose decision is to be final"
If anyone finds a part of the rules which contradict this please let me know for future reference.

How much more publicity he now has by the defeated motion! Trying to calm down. Meanwhile can anyone explain to my simple mind why it would not be in the trust's interest to defend itself against someone who by his actions shows that he against what the trust stands for?

Trust Member - email me at focussupport@hotmail.com
or call on 01592 712149, give me your name and I will find out why you are not receiving communications. Until it is sorted out you will find that most forhcoming events are posted to the EFST website.

Mike - I think I have congratulated you on this before but it is reasoned arguement like yours that has solved conflicts all over the world. Your suggestion on brain removal is inspired. You are a star (whoever you are).

I was quite dissapointed with the result lastnight, although those voting against Brown were pretty clear that they were doing it in spite of him, personally i'd rather have seen him punted from our trust and thats why I voted to do so.

In the bigger picture though it's not really important, what is important is that we kick him out of our club where he holds a position of power and is using it (probably not through intent, just incompetence) to suffocate East Fife FC.

I look forward to next Thursday when we can have a good talk about what is to be done.

Instead of falling out with one another we should be laying the blame where it belongs.Derrick knew that his role as Chairman of East Fife would almost certainly conflict with his membership of the Trust.He should have exercised the judgement expected of a man in his position and not joined.

Hey guys

The Friendly Societies (Proxy Voting) Regulations 1993 states that

c) the instrument appointing a proxy or any other document necessary to show the validity of, or otherwise relating to, the appointment of a proxy must be received at the registered office of the society, or at such other place within the United Kingdom as is specified for that purpose in the notice convening the meeting, not less than 48 hours before the time for holding the meeting, or adjourned meeting, at which the person named in the instrument proposes to vote.

looks like your vote was in fact illegal, it IS in breech of regulations.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19932294_en_1.htm

Quite right apart from the fact that our rules are not a straight copy of that document.

If you're a Trust member it would have been more appropriate to raise this with ther Trust Secretary rather than post anonymously on a public forum.

If you're not then you're cleary interested in the affairs of the Trust so may I suggest you contact a board member to discuss joining.

"If you're a Trust member it would have been more appropriate to raise this with ther Trust Secretary rather than post anonymously on a public forum."

Eugene, I think you should get 20 signatures and get bobby kicked out!

I did vote agaisnt Derrick Brown remaining a member of the Trust,but can respect those who voted for him to remain.

What did astound me though,was the personal attack made on GOF by Alan Henderson.I won`t follow suit and criticise him personally,but I think the reaction to his tirade by those who were present said it all really.

i didnt see you two (eugene and IQ_10)jump on GoF earlier tonight when he questioned the validity of the proxy vote.

yes i am interested in the club, but i am afraid i shall sit on the outside.

the more i read the more words like hypocrite and bigot seem to echo in the back of my mind.

if you guys spent as much time going forward as you do going back and fro having jibes and stabs at each other you may just have achieved your common objective some time ago.

Well said Bobby.

Re proxie votes. The trust rules state that they should be submitted at least 2 days before the meeting. However at the meeting the chairman has the right to pass judgement on any objections.

Let's not clutch at straws!

"i didnt see you two (eugene and IQ_10)jump on GoF earlier tonight when he questioned the validity of the proxy vote."

Bobby I'm not sure what you're getting at but if it's at me then how about speaking to me or emailing me directly rather than the unfortunately now customary anonymous stuff? I assume you're not ashamed of your views!

As for "jumping on GoF" why is there the need to use such language, especially when I have actually addressed the point earlier.

Other Chairman, I am about to e-mail you regarding my contact details

I know of at least one other member who gets his notifications etc thru the post and didn't receive the latest info. If anyone knows of someone who does not have internet access and has not received anything via snail mail, get them to let me know and I will take issue with the Royal Mail.

I'm not a member of the trust but it seems to me that DB joined in the first place just to get under everyone's skin. Don't give it another thought about him being a member, you are just giving him the satisfaction knowing that he has everyone up in arms.
Let him play his little games, don't sink to his level by bickering amongst yourselfs.