Perhaps as Secretary of the club I can just record that at last nights AGM, and under the newly approved arrangement for annual re-election of Directors, the following directors were re-elected:-

Willie Gray
Sid Collumbine
John Sharp
David Stevenson
David Hamilton
Andy Hain

J Derrick Brown and Mrs Elizabeth Brown are no longer Directors.

and I for one will drink to that....not that I really need much of excuse mind.

Whilst it is great news that Bonny and Clyde have been given the dicht, it confuses me as to why guys like Stevenson (a puppet for the Rodgers) Hamilton & Hain (didn't have the balls to fight for the club when it mattered) have retained their seats, i'm not saying they will have any negative effects but it's surely a question that needs answering?

You're getting your Stevensons mixed up I think.
I don't think, post Brown, we need a truth and reconciliation summit.
We've got rid of the cancer, lets be happy and look forward...

The Browns are now gone. This is what we were told would happen. The doubters have been proven wrong!

Let's stop the witch hunts and leave the new board to get on with running the club. They have delivered what they said they would.

Old Woody -
If you are still not happy, then why don't you try and join the board yourself next time round?

Great news for the club, it's been a hard year but we got there in the end, now lets get this league won, starting with a thumping victory tomorow!

The Mole, where are you???

RABHAW is reight, twit and twat have gone, lets support the new board.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

When trust man getting selected for the board??

O`Come all ye faithfull
Joyful and triumphant!!

the Browns may no longer be directors but what about their ownership of shares? are they still shareholders and with what percentage of shares in the club do they own themselves and can they they still have a proxy on other shares.

Here I am, Igor.

And what exactly are you crowing about?

You and your wee gang promised trust representation on the board at the AGM.

So who exactly is the rep?... or did you mean the 2007 AGM, or was it 2008....?

What's the stumbling block now?

Come on, out with it!!!

Mole you are wrong.

What was promised -and accepted by the Trust - was that changes would be made at the AGM to the club's articles to allow Trust representation on the EFFC board.

These changes have taken place and the club and Trust have agreed that a Trust nominee will be in place before the start of the next season.

The Trust board understand that other changes have priority at the club and are quite happy to go along with this arrangement.

I'm not sure what your agenda is, other than of course to stir things up, but thank you for for the opportunity to set the record straight on this matter.

Are you still an 'insider' at Bayview Moley?

Some answers then re board representation. It sounds great but then why was it not trumpeted as soon as it happened? Is this the age of open discussion/negotiation that was promised? What are these changes that have taken place? Or do you not think the ordinary fans "need to know" the details?

Mind you I will believe it when I see it. We have too often been fobbed off with promises.

Below is the press release I issued TWO HOURS after the club AGM had ended.

FOR IMMEDIATE USE


Trust Welcome Club AGM Decisions
The Supporters’ Trust welcomes and fully supports the decisions taken at
the recent East Fife FC AGM. The proposals relating to the change in shareholding required for Board membership are particularly welcome as they open the way for a Trust nominee in line with the previous statements made by Messrs Gray and Collumbine.

We also support the share issue and look forward to using the support of our members to contribute to this. Following other discussions with the Board it seems clear that East Fife is now a club with its sights firmly set on a future that involves the supporters and this can only be good.

Commented Martin Black, the Trust representative who attended the AGM, “It was a very positive meeting and I’m delighted to see such openness and honesty at the top level in the club. Our members will be really looking forward to supporting the many exciting developments ahead.”

I should have added that as I've been away I've no idea how much of that release has been used.

There is also the point which has been raised before at Trust meetings regarding how a nominee should be chosen. There is an interim policy at the moment because the trust board had to consider the possibility of producing a name at short notice. Now we know that we have a few months the matter can be given its due consideration by members.

Sorry I may be still confused but the press release did not seem to answer my query. The reduction in shareholding required before becoming a board member although welcome does not (as I understand it) clear the way for supporter representation. As Sid said there are some other obstacles in the articles that need to be resolved before this can happen. Was this true or not? If true what steps have been taken to remove the obstacles?

Another point of clarification needed as someone previously pointed out. What is the Browns' position. I know that they have been removed from the board But there still remains the issue of a large percentage of shares which if unresolved will mean they can still wield a considerable amount of power. In effect are the Browns still with us but now out of sight?

These are points not just raised by me but in effect by our vice chairman and really all I am asking is a progress report.

The Browns have control of about 3% of the shares, a proportion which will of course reduce depending on the take up of the share issue.

The rule changes mean there is no longer any obstacle to a Trust nominee joining the EFFC board. As mentioned earlier this will happen before the start of next season. That is the undertaking and timetable given by the club to the trust and the trust board is happy to go along with these arrangements.

Hello again Mole, have you joined Cowden yet?

Thanks Eugene. I will certainly watch this space and hope my scepticism is unfounded!

Need to know, I will second that sentiment, al the way.

Need to know - get real. If the Browns had even a glimmer on influence now they would have used it at the AGM when they were removed from the Board. Not a word was said. They are quite simply history, frankly best ignored as not even being worth talking about.

Here's the best bit, though. I'm told that contrary to having any remaining interest they will be desperate to get rid of the shares they still have so that DB can stay in football somewhere else (you can't have an involvement in more than one club). But DB can't even give them away without the consent of the Board, which isn't exactly friendly to him! So he has shares but no influence, and no way of getting rid of them to give an escape route to Cowdenbeath or Burntisland. Neat, is it not!

Sid was telling me on Saturday that the SFA have been informed about JDB's removal as an East Fife director, should JDB wish to keep a position within the SFA he needs to be involved in one of it's clubs in some capacity. However, he can't do that whilst he is a (small) shareholder at East Fife, the snag is though that any sell of his shares needs to be cleared by the East Fife board. Bearing in mind the trouble he brought our club it's easy to see why our board might choose to "make it difficult" for the wee arse, and end his SFA involvement.

Can this be confirmed by a shareholder / board member, beautiful if true!!!!!!!!!1.

If true,then that would be sweet revenge on the little erse,who brought so much misery to the real EF supporters.
And he cost me about 2 pairs of trainers,due to be ruined by standing on the mucky mound......b@stard!

Oh, it's all certainly true. And the silence of The Mole can be taken to confirm that!

Igor - you really are an immature little "man", aren't you? The smiley is quite a good likeness, mind you!

At least Eugene has attempted to present a grown-up argument, albeit his logic is flawed. Eugene, please explain to the assembled multitude PRECISELY why it is perceived to be necessary to wait until the summer to appoint a trust nominee.

I'm willing to bet that certain other parties will, if we are promoted, convert their cash input over the season into shares and that this will make it highly unlikely that the trust will have sufficient of a percentage to merit a seat on the board. And if we blow it, then said other parties will seek repayment of what is currently a loan, which will been the club is f***ed. I know how their minds work.

And as for you, Shareholder, what a load of pish. There are countless directors of clubs with shareholdings in other clubs. It only becomes an issue if they have a "significant" interest in two or more clubs. The bold Derrick does not have a significant interest in any club....thankfully.

I believe someone asked you if you were still an "insider" at Bayview?

BTW your theories are quite hilarious, we should start calling you Grassy Knoll. Why is it you only re-surface when someone says "Mole"?

"The Mole"

Given the fact that your previous shit-stirring predictions were so dreadful, and couldn't have been further from reality, what on earth makes you think anyone is going to take you serious now?

So....no attempt by igor-ant to address the reasonable points (OK, call them theories if you prefer) I make. Just resorting to childish comments again.

We await the comments of the adults.

"We await the comments of the adults. "

PISS OFF MOLE

Dearie me.... is that the best you can do, "adult"?

Mole I am not anti or pro but I feel your argument does not hold water re percentage of shares will stop the appointment of a fans representative.

The change in rules mean that anyone with an hundred shares could be appointed over someone with say 10,000. However your query regarding the waiting until the end of the season is valid and I have seen no reason why this could not have been done earlier. To my mind (and here I stir it up a bit) it is to a large extent in the trust's hands on which they appear to have been sitting. Why does it take so long to achieve a decision on a candidate and why can the trust not follow through and strike while the iron's hot ie. Sid's press release on a representative? This will be forgotten and the whole concept will be twisted into unrecognisability by the time anything happens, if it does happen.

A fair opinion, NTK.

Perhaps if the Trust (Eugene?) can publish the wording of the new rules as agreed at the AGM, we'll be able to see for ourselves what is possible and what is not.

Maybe it's time for folk to remember that having a Trust nominee on the board of EFFC has never been a specific objective of the the EFST.

The fact that it is now going to happen is a reflection of the changed approach at EFFC, a change to which the protestors, the supporters' club. the trust and many others contributed.

That's why talk of "striking while the iron's hot" etc is unnecessary. Those who look on the process in that way are creating conflict where none lies.

Now let me get away to Arbroath in peace!

" iv. to encourage the Club to take proper account of the interests of its supporters and of the
community it serves in its decisions;
v. to encourage and promote the principle of supporter representation on the board of any
company owning or controlling the Club and ultimately to be the vehicle for democratic
elections to the board;"

The above is taken from the objects of the Trust. Now whilst it does not say that the supporter's rep should come from the trust it is an obvious and I thought agreed course that the trust would push for this to happen. All we /I am asking is why is it taking so long for this to be set up especially as Sid announced it publically.

The reason I am pushing the point is that despite assurances to the contrary I am sure it is the last thing the board wants and they will delay and procrastinate and probably find reasons for it not to happen. We are not alone in this battle (it has happened elsewhere and in other spheres) and make no mistake it is a battle which will require some fight from the supporters for it to come about. The board will gladly nod and agree with you and do nothing. And while we do nothing but wait for it to happen the outcome will be nothing.

The reason I asked about associate directors previously is that if they or others are confirmed in full directorship there will be no spaces left for the fans rep.

For those that think the board/shareholders are altruistic, they need to think again. It is a game of them and us. Them being the supporters and us being the elite who hold the power and will not give it away lightly.

By the way Eugene your are the epitome of a spindoctor/politician in not answering direct questions. Twice it has been asked what were the rule changes made at the AGM to allow fans representation. From a previous comment by you I assumed there were no changes needed except the minimum shareholding; but I am not sure now that was correct.

"By the way Eugene your are the epitome of a spindoctor/politician in not answering direct questions."

I assume that's not intended as a compliment!

The reason I haven't answered specifically is quite simple - I don't have the exact wording of the changes to hand and clearly that's what you are intersted in. Perhaps someone reading this who does can help or, as it's specifically a club matter, why not get in touch with them?

My comments are based on the feedback I received from the official Trust representative who attended the club AGM and I've no reason to doubt its accuracy.

When I have a copy of the offical minute showing the exact wording I'll happily post it here but the other channels I've mentioned may be quicker.

To tell you the truth I'm getting a bit weary of the permanent doubters who always seem to be choosing the glass that's half-empty. A lot of good people have worked hard to get to the position we're in and it's a bit dispiriting to be have some people constantly whining that maybe it's all going to fall to pieces. No doubt if that did happen they'd really enjoy that good old Scottish tradition of wagging the finger and quoting those well-worn words, "Ah tellt ye!"

Too true Eugene, too true!

OK. Fairy nuff. Said my piece. Will now accept the glass is half full and sit back like everyone else and wait till the club appoints a fans rep.

'Need to know' and 'Mole' I attended EFFC AGM as the Trusts Rep. I found it to be an honest and fair meeting and reported back accordingly. It was reaaly rather refreshing talking to board members and shareholders both who were taking in such a positive way about the way forward. Equally encouraging was the recognition of the support given by volunteers in supporting the club. What was really 'tops' was the all had real names and weren't hiding behind aliases.
If you really feel so much concern for the club why do you hide behind these names? Why are you both always 'prophets of doom' or ' I told you so's'. Frankly, nothing I have read from either of you has ever corresponded to facts. If you continue to snipe away as spineless cowards behind your anonimity I am sure your comments will be treated with the disdain they deserve.

These are individual comments etc.

It's interesting that the only individuals who have identified themselves by using their real name on this thread are Bruce Black, Eugene Clarke, M Black and myself (although I haven't taken part in this particular debate until now). In order to have a meaningful and useful debate on the matter, would it not be a good idea to act like responsible adults and not hide behind pseudonymns?
I, for one, have nothing to hide and I certainly don't care who knows what my opinions are. And why should you?

Martin do not want to continue this but had to reply to your post. All I was asking was clarification of several points. And I also expressed my opinion of negotiations between groups based on previous experience. It is good that relations at the club are so good. I was only suggesting words are cheap and normally gains are only made after positive endeavor for the objective.

As I said we will wait and see.

Now now chaps, it's the season of goodwill and all that.

Folk have a perfect right to ask questions, even if they do annoy others (including me). If a person wishes to remain anonymous then that's their right too - I'm sure they'll have their own reasons even if they're not ones I would go along with.

We're all wanting the same thing - a successful EFFC.

Martin

You were at the AGM, so I am sure you will be able to help Eugene out. Please, for everyone's sake, just post below the detail of the amendments to the Articles of Association that show that there is now no obstacle to a trust rep joining the board in summer 2007.

And if, for some reason, you are not prepared to share this information with your fellow fans (although this will raise other supporters' fears), kindly at least clarify whether any director appointment will be subject to either board approval and / or a minimum shareholding percentage.

If you are able to clarify this for us all, The Mole will disappear back into his hole, but if you are not, this pesky rodent will keep digging. It's for your own good, you know.

Over to you....... and a Happy New Year when it comes!!

Mr Mole you will be well aware that with any limited company the appointment of any director is subject to approval by the existing board and/or shareholders. EFFC Ltd is no different.

The shareholding requirement for board membership has been reduced to 100 and all appointments are subject to the approval of 10% of the shareholders.

Any Trust nominee for the EFFC board will be treated in the same way as others - legally it cannot be otherwise. We do, however, have an undertaking from the present chairman and major shareholder that there will be a trust nominee on the board by next season. I have no reason to doubt that this will happen.

I take it you weren't at the AGM Mole? I thought you were an insider?

Wrong, Eugene. There is nothing in company law that states that a board must approve an appointment. There are many companies where a certain shareholding entitles you to a seat on the board.

So you are basing your inaction on a verbal "assurance" from an individual who has, to be charitable, a hatred of trusts. Be assured that whatever he is saying to your faces, he is smirking and laughing at you behind your backs about how gullible you all are.

And you are prepared to simply await his call in the summer.....very foolish indeed. It's a far cry from all the rhetoric a few months ago.

Never mind, it'll soon be time to unleash that intellectual giant Igor back onto the front line. I can hardly wait to see what Willie would do to him if he tried the same stunts again!!

I didn't say it was a matter of company law.
A limited company will have its Articles of Association which will include provision for the creation of directors.
These Articles are at some point subject to the approval of shareholders.

I'd be more impressed with your cynicism if you were willing to provide any clue as to your identity to allow a judgement to be made of your credibility.

Maybe you're frightened of Willie Gray?
Or the revelation of your identity could lead to a plummeting share market?
Or you're simply an articulate chap who likes stirring it?

Have a good New Year.

Mole although we have not been told of changes to the articles necessary for a fans rep. to be appointed. From other comments not least the assurance given to Eugene there will be a rep appointed by the start of the season, we can assume there is no block to this and that previous comments that the articles would need to be changed were erroneous. (I never did quite believe this anyway).

Eugene just a minor point. Proposals for directorship require board approval or 10% of shareholding. Actual appointment would require a majority vote if opposed.

The AGM seems to have been a non-interesting affair with little info. For example if directors were put up for re-election I would like to have known the voting especially for the Browns. Or did he eventually resign to save the ignominy? Just little facts like this would let us know what is actually happenning.

Just had a thought maybe everything was steamrollered through as in Brown's day and we now have a vice chairman in the Brown mold.

As usual without information conspiracy theories abound.

For info, a motion was forwarded that a group of directors (not including the Browns) be re-elected. This motion was carried without opposition (though anyone who wished to oppose it could have done). There was no individual voting for any particular director.

It could be claimed that this 'en bloc' approach was deliberate to try to prevent any move against any particular candidate of course.

Well, the en bloc approach is certainly contrary to company law. Look it up if you don't believe me.

"The Mole will disappear back into his hole"

Fnarr fnarr fnarr! Must be double jointed!!

(Then again, I reckon he's already too far up his own arse )

And, Eugene, you actually said "the appointment of any director is subject to approval by the existing board and/or shareholders. EFFC is no different"

whereas EFFC IS different. As I say, many private companies do not have such a requirement, but EFFC has chosen to retain this power of veto.

Why?

Mole It is often a tactic used by boards to present the en bloc option. Unless this is challenged at the meeting and individual selection adopted, then it is a valid custom and working practice.

As to the request re content of the meeting being placed on the Web. My first duty as a Trust Rep at the meeting is to report back to our board. They will then make the decision on any future action required. As the meeting was an honest affair and the minutes are a public record for shareholders. I'm sure, as you will be a Trust member? That this info will be shortly be forthcoming to our membership

Well, Mr Trust Rep, as you will have presumably known the wording of the resolution since the end of November when notice was given to shareholders, we can assume that if you are going to keep that secret for a month, you have no intention of ever divulging it to lesser mortals.

The more sensible supporters will be wondering why the secret squirrel stuff. Be open. All you need to do is quote the words that show me I'm wrong to fear we are being shafted.

I will apologise and leave you to get on with things if you do that. If you do not, people will make up their own minds what you are keeping from them and I will continue to give you a kick up the arse that you so obviously need.

Any time this year will do...waiting....

tick,tock

Mr Mole

You mention that the wording of the resolution has been available " since the end of November when notice was given to shareholders".

If that's the case why haven't you answered your own question before now?
Why haven't you appraoched the club itself?
Why haven't you asked another shareholder?

It strikes me that your continual efforts to acquire this information by asking one specific shareholder on an unoffical website to give you your answer is a little indirect.

It's a bit like asking the guy living next door to pass the salt when it's sitting in front of you at your own table. Unless of course you don't really want the salt, you're just trying to see what his house is like!

Could it possibly be you are anti trust for some reason? Or do you just like asking questions without any clear idea as to what to do with the answers you get? If the latter I can empathise with you - it can be good fun.

Have a good New Year

The Mole As I suspected you are a cowardly little 'dickhead' intent on 'shit stirring' If you knew the committee procedures of any organisation then you would probably understand the process democracy has to go through. That would assume some modicum of intelligence that has obviously eluded you thoughout your life. As for kicking my arse feel free but remember I just might kick back as moles are some type of vermin are they not.

And a happy new year to you too, sir!!

Well, that's a first. A supporter asks a trust rep to be open about the content of a resolution passed at a club AGM and the response of this elected member is to call the supporter a dickhead.

You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself and without a doubt you should resign immediately, but of course you won't because you value your "position" too highly. It would never do if you were to rejoin the ignorant masses, would it?!

Is there nobody else out there that thinks the responses of certain individuals to my enquiries is a disgrace? The bottom line here, fellow fife fans, is that our "voice" within the inner sanctum is not up to the job. He is believing what he is being told and doesn't have either the gumption or the intelligence to challenge anything that is unclear. What other reason can there be for such gross negligence in keeping his electorate in the picture?

Mole yir an arse or a friend of Deek and Julian. What would you do with the information anyway talk to the other moles aboout it. Where should it be sent to the Mole in the hole????

You not big enough to put your name to anything??? No the Trust guys right a shithead you are

I think its very clear that "The Mole" is a shit stirrer who wants to creat animosity and conflict amongst the supporers, just like he tried to last time before he was ignored and his predictions were about as good as my bookies line.

Remember, he has only re-appeared because I asked where he was now, strange that isn't it?

He's obviously not an "insider" like he had claimed too, he wasn't at the AGM and hasn't been able to comment on any goings on behind the scenes at the club.

He now paints himself as a simple "supporter" who deserves better from the likes of Martin, an evil trust board member who only cares about his position.

Mole, identify yourself and your true aims, or piss off. If you fail to do the former then the best thing everyone on here can do is ignore you, you are an attention whore and that seems to be the worst punishment for you.

So, what are we saying here? You only get to post on AFTN if everyone knows your real name. The use of tag names is to be banned with immediate effect. This "resolution" (which is in writing for all to see on this occasion) is proposed by two supporters who their parents christened E F Supporter and Igor respectively. All those in favour please show.....

Alternatively, somebody from the trust may care to actually ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

The Mole - Any questions members have can be asked to me or any other board member directly and they will be answered. We are not answerable to annonymous posters on AFTN - well, not the last time I checked anyway.

Push away for whatever conclusion you want and keep digging while you are at it. I will answer nothing you have asked because I don't have to. If you think that is not open then tough. I don't know who you are and at this point I couldn't really give a flying hoot. I will answer to Trust members not sh*t stirrers on a forum. Incase you are about to bleat on about openess, read our constitution. It says nothing about posting every breath we take to keep the readers of AFTN informed.

And before you start asking for resignations and the like, I'm not listenening or even going to read any of your future posts.

That is all.

In other words, LALALALALALA!!

I am not suggesting that your constitution states you are answerable to users of this board. I am simply trying to point out that, if sensible supporters are to believe that things are truly changing at the club, they need openness and transparency from you.

Instead, what they are getting is a clear picture that either the trust does not have a clue what is really going on at the club, or that it does know that - once again - an opportunity has been lost to ensure the club is run in a more open manner.

Readers of this thread who have > 2 brain cells will have surely deduced that the trust officers are unwilling to share the wording of this resolution - not a State secret...a resolution, that is all...- because they know damn fine that it will be exposed as a clause through which a coach and horses can be driven, and that the Board retains (and will use) its power to veto any trust appointment in the future.

If I am wrong, prove it and I will eat humble pie.

And your name is?

No, I thought not.

What's up, lost your line on the inside information and need someone else to provide it now?

Mr (of of course Ms, Mrs or Miss)Mole

If what you are trying to say is that it is possible at some point the club will not approve the appointment of a Trust member to the EFFC board then of course that is the case.

Any appointment to the board is subject to approval and a Trust nominee would be in no different a position.

We know that it is possible for this not to go ahead - it doesn't need an anally retentive obsession with motions to know that!

What we are agreed on is that there is an atmosphere of goodwill towards the Trust at the club and we are willing in turn to trust Messrs Collumbine and Gray when they say there will be a Trust board member before next season.

If our trust is mispleaced no doubt you'll helpfully point that out at the appropriate time.

Do continue to have a jolly New Year - see you in the usual place at the next match (not the friendly.)

Eugene, You say, "if our trust is misplaced no doubt you'll helpfully point that out at the appropriate time"........yes, that's what I'm doing... NOW!!!
By summer 07 it will be too late, but yes, I will remind you then of this thread.

See you at the Shire game.

As previously stated I will report back to the board and all trust members will then be appraised of happenings. Was going to call Trust membership meeting on 25th Dec but was dissuaded Same for Hogmany and New Year. Therfore if you are a Trust member you will get the info at same time as the rest of the Trust membership.

However, I have asked the membership secretary to look for The Mole on our membership list. It appears you have not renewed your subscription obviously an oversight you will address as you have this burning quest for knowledge

Eugene says... "an anally retentive obsession with motions"

Did you mean the pun?

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...and they're right! You could also have called a meeting for any of the other 29 days in December. You could even have decided on a date in January and at least we would have known how long we needed to wait for answers. But you've not even done that. Shame on you.

Have you noticed the lack of support from the more sensible posters for your stance here? They don't want to come out and support what I am saying because they will be vilified for doing so, but the silence of the majority of site users on this topic speaks volumes.

Get your collective fingers out!!

I back the mole. He makes fair points. The rest of you are bummers.

"Have you noticed the lack of support from the more sensible posters for your stance here? They don't want to come out and support what I am saying because they will be vilified for doing so,"

For christ sake get a grip, you are a self obsessed wanker. Who are these "sensible" posters you talk about?

Well, Cod (your real name, I presume) you are certainly not one of the sensible ones.

What's wrong with what I am asking for?

Here's one. I've said nothing until now. IMHO, Mole has made several valid points. It is a shame that he has also dished out a few insults that do not help his cause. It's a shame too that some posters have resorted to even worse abuse in turn (not Eugene).

Somewhere in this thread, there are two or three points that are worthy of debate. Personally I don't think it makes much difference if we get a Trust member on the board or not, but like 'Need To Know' I have to say that there is no good reason to wait another six or seven months. JDB was removed in early September I think. Taking almost a year to (maybe) get a Trust member on the board cannot be justified. Do you think John Sharp (who?) waited so long to be appointed a director? Why the delay?

I also think that Mole has a point over the openness of the Trust. He has made it badly through use of aggression but it is a point all the same. There is much goes on at the Trust that the rank and file members do not know about. There are good reasons for that of course but no one should be denying the fact that Trust officials have a much clearer view of the picture than other Trust members, particularly those who cannot attend regular meetings. Lack of information breeds frustration, speculation and paranoia. This thread is full of it.

See, that's a sensible, rational post, Cod.

I do try not to retaliate to the vitriolic attacks by certain prominent trust members but it is difficult. Anyway, this thread is not supposed to be about me...it was, and still is, an attempt to get the trust officials to communicate with the chairman AND the fans (without insults), to professionally challenge what they are being asked to believe, and to remember the many warnings they have been given (including from supporters of other clubs) about those now in charge of EFFC.

After what I've had to read from them over the last few days I am pessimistic that the current incumbents (perhaps Eugene apart) are up to the job, but I shall keep my fingers crossed that they can grow up before it's too late.

What are you doing about it?

Obviously if he feels strongly enough about it the mole will stand for election to the trust board.

But then again he may feel that the trust (as a group and not individually} has done little to promote the needs of the fans and the club. E.G. Brown's removal which has been the highlight of the fans achievement this year with little positive input fom the trust.

As I understand it Brown may still be a member of the trust although I expect he has let his membership lapse by not paying his dues. I think it may even be worth it to pay Brown's lifetime dues to the trust so he can be there in the years to come for all to see how little the trust has achieved.

A personal opinion which may take the heat off mole and set me up for some comical vituperation.

A kindred spirit!

Being a Mole, I'm quite good at digging trenches. You're very welcome to join me, need to know!!

The recent postings are a load of pish !! I ain't reading anymore of this CRAP.

How nice. A wee pal for Cod help us too...

Just a thought, but seeing as how Bruce Black, as secretary of the club, was good enough to inform supporters through this forum of the election of a new board (see 1st post on this thread) perhaps he'd be good enough to post the approved resolution here also, to save our trust friends the bother.

Interesting debate and thread. As a very interested observer, and despite his need for vituperation, the Mole does indeed make some very valid points. The East Fife Supporters Trust, MUST be SEEN o be acting in the interests of ALL the fans at Bayview, or New Bayview, whatever, or what would be the point of it's existence? Eugene is articulate, even in print, but I find his attitude condescending. "I know better than you" etc.

Collombine is a wee git. He will put everything in the way of a democratically elected fan. Why? Because he just will. If I was a member of the EF Trust, I'd be asking why a fundamental principle of the model rules is not being acted upon, now, given the new status of the club board. Get on with it. Or be forever out in the cold.

Also, ask yourself why Mr Rankine has surrounded himself with loyal henchmen once more. Brown was a useful protagonist and a means to an end. Collombine and Sharp will be worse. Get in there and do it now.

"Brown was a useful protagonist and a means to an end. Collombine and Sharp will be worse."

Anyone who's been going to Bayview these last 5 years would laugh at that claim.

Saying that the Mole might have made "some valid points" is fair enough, he might or might not have, depending on your opinion. But the fact is that nobody likes a liar, it's no wonder that nobody has taken him seriously after all his lies about being "in beside Gray/Collumbine" at Bayview when its now oh so obvious that this was bullshit.

In my opinion it looks like (another) attempt to turn folk against Willie Gray, an old grudgebearer from the Rovers perhaps. The fact is though, it doesn't matter because when we turn up on matchday now we see the difference at the club - its like night and day, nothing any anonymous sniper posts on an internet forum will change that.

If Mr Mole is so desperate for info from the trust he could always write to the trust board in person and i'm sure they will be delighted to enter dialogue with him. Failing that, he can use his position as a trust member to get rid of the trust board members and take their place.

I don't think there's any chance of him doing so however, as he is not involved in any "real life" aspect of EFFC.

Alison - fair enough, but, with respect, you miss the point. Snipers I have no time for, equally I have no time for those who deliberately bury their head in a bucket of sand. East Fife and Dumbarton are linked, big style, and believe me, the only people who can get both clubs away from the mess both are heading for, are the fans.

For sure, the new regime feels like a breath of fresh air given the experience with Deek. However, Broon was acting on instructions, albeit adding his own personality to the mix, and the Collombine fella will be doing the same.

Has Sid actually bought the controlling interest in East Fife? Does he OWN the majority shareholding? The Trust should be lobbying, now, for an elected seat on the EF board. Why wait? Test the water. The Trust MUST be seen as being open, transparent and accountable. After all, without those tenets, and the support of the majority of the EF support, time will be wasted. You shouldn't see this is as a criticism, more a statement of encouragement.

Sons fan thanks for the info. You may have had more experience of Sid and Sharp but meantime at the club as you said the atmosphere is so much better and no one wants to rock the boat. For myself I have more time for Willie and the jury is out on Sid. As for Sharp some bad vibes have been coming.

Many will see your comments as "interference" and muck raking but I take all comments as welcome but keep my decisions until evidence is forthcoming. As yet there is no definate evidence except the decision for a fans rep being postponed.

This has been on the back of a Trust member comment that there has been an assurance that the rep will be appointed by the new season. Now I do not know where that assurance has come from. Has it been publically announced or just a quiet word in someone's ear?

As I have said often enough words are cheap and that is why some of us have been requesting progress on this.

NTK, fair dinkum. I just can't understand the reluctance to push through what appears to be an open door. The Trust movement has enough critics as it is without the obvious crit that currently surrounds your situation.

Get on that board, ask all the right questions, be FULLY involved and make sure that YOUR club is shaped the way it should be. Collombine is a sharp cookie, he know how to play to the gallery, as does his wee sidekick Sharp. Count your fingers after you shakehands with either of them.