The future of TUST

There is an awful load of kack on this thread.

simonb 



What an insult to the TFF members and visitors to the site, simonb,  . This is a wonderfully popular thread, that members and visitors keep coming back to time and again. And bear in mind that it spends a good deal of its existence not necessarily even on the opening page of this Section of the Forum.

Add together the number of views of the threads on other topics (naturally excluding those given unfair compulsory prominence by the Administrators which keep them at the top of the pile) and you’ll find you have to add the views of every other topic going back several pages before you’d reach a combined ‘views’ total that matches the excess of 104,000 that have been drawn to our ongoing quest to bring the Trust Movement under the spotlight for some proper scrutiny.

Remember the bad old days of unrelenting and often inaccurate pro-Trust propaganda that preoccupied the Forums, which not only spawned the requirement for the other side of the story to be voiced, but has also now shown the numbers eager to avail themselves to a source that provides them with an alternative to that old bland diet of constant pro-Trust spin.

And every one of those 104,000 views being totally voluntary, as it’s a thread that everyone is entitled to completely ignore, as Chelston has just reminded us. Torquay fans dissatisfaction with the old One Party State providing ‘information’ on Trust issues has been born out by the continuing popularity of this thread.

However much TUST bully boys smear the existence of this thread it with ‘kack’, or complain when a dissenting voice is allowed to be heard, the more determined will the bulk of TUFC fans be to head towards the nearest litter bin on being issued with their free TUST membership card  .

Welcome back to TUSTWatch ! Sadly the new season doesn’t seem to be kicking off well for our TUST chums, who are struggling to cling onto any official presence within Plainmoor at all.

They’ve come a cropper due to the ‘Ambassadorgate’ controversy, which most will be aware of. And congratulations to TFF, while not exactly having an ‘exclusive’ were certainly many hours ahead of the pack in bringing ‘Ambassadorgate to its readers.

As for myself, the highlight of the Summer was getting a new mobile phone. Press a button and a camera looking in the opposite direction pops into action. Especially designed for the selfie generation no doubt. It’s just a pity I’m too old and ugly to enjoy it to the maximum. But it is a reminder of the origins and continued need for TUSTWatch as we embark on a new season. As the attacks on the club became more fevered, more outlandish, and with less regard for truth, the need for at least one source that could turn the lens the other way and put TUST, it’s motives and methods under the spotlight instead, became obvious.

The Forums remain to an overwhelming extent a TUST run bubble. Owned, directed, and administered by mostly, if not all, TUST members. And as members of an organisation whose aim it is to impose a model that would exclude any and every non TUST member among our support from sharing in club ownership, no sudden embrace of diversity is likely.

How many, or how easy was it for the club to appoint non TUST member Matchday Ambassadors last season ? Given that TUST were accused of muscling in against the wishes of another fans group in certain areas last season, I feel sure that any type of ‘closed shop’ agreement would have been instantly rejected by either TUST or the club. As too many examples of an ‘apartheid’ mindset really wouldn’t look good.

And that’s why I’m confident there were no restrictions on who could become Matchday ambassadors last season, let alone Supporters Club members who didn’t also possess a TUST membership card. But it’s the lack of a basic knowledge of what the agreement was, that makes it all the more difficult for the ordinary fan to now know whether it needed scrapping, revising, and whether or not a TUST exclusivity clause existed or not.

And so what we witness so far are ‘discussions’ that focus on the club, the naturally disappointed Matchday ambassadors, the tasks they performed, George Edwards,etc, etc. But with a glaringly obvious determination to ignore the elephant in the room, which is TUST.

So you’ll be pleased to know that a TUSTWatch look at ‘Ambassadorgate’ that doesn’t conveniently miss out the all important TUST factor, will hopefully be along later

It was a positive initiative by TUST to improve the matchday experience of fellow fans in line with national initiatives elsewhere which was well received. Scrapping it can only be a retrograde step.

If the club wanted to do it differently, then a thanks chaps for your efforts would have been nice but the message was “we are not doing it this year.” Pretty sure there isn’t a queue of volunteers wanting to spend the hour before kick off greeting everyone coming through the turnstiles!

What I would say is that the role could have been much improved if the club had communicated better and outlined procedures and areas of responsibilities so we didn’t have to react to certain situations on the hoof. With continued success on the pitch a new wave of fans are coming to Plainmoor and the Matchday Ambassadors have been a very useful first contact point in what can be a very daunting environment of 5000 raucous (in a good way) fans.

'AMBASSADORGATE'




rjdgull


‘Ambassadorgate’ is an interesting problem in its own right. I can’t judge on its rights and wrongs, or provide the solutions. But equally won’t shy away from mentioning one player central to the current dispute. The discussions over the past days have been hidebound by an apparent self imposed requirement to leave the TUST issue on the sidelines, in the hope that it can remain there unnoticed while every other aspect of the dispute is fair game for examination.

While TUSTWatch is still permitted, let’s use it to buck the trend, and angle the spotlight where others won’t.

So what becomes more conspicuous as each day goes on ?, by the lack of discussion into the ‘All TUST shortlist’ for Ambassador positions, and the current scrapping of the scheme ?

Well let’s consider what obvious advantages there might be to not having Matchday Ambassadors compared to having them ? And frankly I’m struggling to think of any. While rectifying most of the practical difficulties that rjd mentions can surely easily fall within the remit of the stewards, the actual ‘meet and greet’ doesn’t.

And given the stadium management and hospitality expertise that Gaming International and George Edwards have, you can be certain they recognise those important hours before, during, and after a match when long standing customers, and potential new customers and sponsors are in attendance. It’s prime networking time, and prime relationship building time. As rjd points out it’s: ‘an amazing opportunity just to talk football’

An opportunity for rjd and all the other TUST Ambassadors to speak to and discuss matters with a far wider range of people than just their own friends. And of course, not necessarily solely football, if you’ve a business head on your shoulders.

Deny it all you like, but there will remain a perceived clear and obvious conflict of interest if those very Ambassadors are members of an organisation that constantly pushes and prioritises its desire to attract more corporate sponsors for itself.

It would be a non issue with a Supporters club, but it’s a totally different kettle of fish with a TUST, reliant on that very same pool for those very same fish (Commercial entities with some interest in football). A supporters club, particularly under the club’s wing, isn’t competing to attract Commercial sponsorship.

Surely it’s the initial decision, due to Harrop and others lack of commercial awareness, that beggars belief, rather than Edwards or whoever’s decision it is, to knock it on the head.

And with regard to items distributed by the Ambassadors, mentioned elsewhere, while it’s probably not exactly accurate to describe it as TUST ‘merchandise’, maybe more a case of promotional items, as I suspect any badges would have to refer to TUST, and were not official TUFC badges, you have to acknowledge the some clubs would have regarded this as likely lost revenue for it’s club shop. No visit to the shop to buy a badge or a pen for the youngster as a memento of the match, as Junior is now already clutching a freebie. The clubs agreement in granting permission for this, even given the possible adverse effect on takings at the till at its own shop, was generous …. to the extent that a few £1 coins for team sheets now perhaps compensates for.

I happened to take a look at the public pronouncements of possibly the week’s most high profile fan, thanks to a new venture. TUST member ? check. Season Ticket Holder ? check. And what words had he chosen at the end of May, as we celebrated promotion and a wonderful season ?

‘The biggest threat to our club’s existence is the owner’

Now George Edwards doesn’t need you or me to tell him that if that’s the sort of stuff being put out on a public platform, it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what would be said in private conversations with a mass of other fans or potential customers if he got given an ambassadorial role.

How nieve would you have to be to allow the conditions, whereby the very people most determined to paint you in as black a light as possible were granted by you, the very opportunity to do so to numerous members of the very fan base you rely on for your income ?

And do you have the time, resources, and manpower to do the background checks to make absolutely certain that he, or those like him, do not become a TUST Matchday Ambassador ?

George Edwards has inherited these problems. Blindingly obvious problems that should never have been set in train in the first place.

Within TUST’s ranks there are clearly many with vastly more allegiance and loyalty to TUST than to Clarke Osborne’s TUFC. Edward’s recognises the sheer folly of allowing foxes potentially easy admittance to the Ambassadorial hen-house.

While TUST provides shelter for the Militants, you cannot possibly expect George Edwards to sift through and identify just those of integrity such as rjdgull, who would carry out the Matchday Ambassador role in exemplary fashion. What evidence and guarantees can TUST provide to Mr.Edwards at their forthcoming meeting, that they have a means of carrying out this process themselves ?

Until that happens I don’t see how anyone can blame George Edwards from applying a broad brush approach to dealing with the clear and obvious problems associated with drawing Matchday Ambassadors from a ‘TUST only’ pool.

Until TUST takes firm steps regarding its Militants problem, difficulties like this, along with the bad feeling are likely to continue.