• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

How would you like our trust to proceed?

Should the Shrimpers Trust pull out from SUFC Support?


  • Total voters
    218
This is pointless! Ron's going nowhere so I wouldn't waste your time.
This is one of those very rare occasions where I agree with you. It's also why the Trust HAVE to keep engaging with him.

I don't know why people find it hard to understand that it's not cosy feet up by the fireplace chats we have, Paul Fitz continues to challenge and question him robustly.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those very rare occasions where I agree with you. It's also why the Trust HAVE to keep engaging with him.

I don't know why people find it hard to understand that it's not cosy feet up by the fireplace chats we have, Paul Fitz continues to challenge and question him robustly.
And that is why we will never properly challenge Ron. Case closed!
 
Are you saying the previous protests were a waste of time ?
I guess the fact that they highlighted the situation to Stan Collymore makes it NOT a complete waste of time... but I wouldn't place too much credence on the pitch invasion, for instance. Any change or progress is down to Stan getting involved. I doubt very much would have happened if he had not thrown his weight behind the effort and engineered the change he has.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about to be honest. Any trust member has the opportunity to stand for election, it is not the decision of the trust board but of the c.1000 members at the annual AGM. I don’t mind constructive criticism but you seem to have an issue for no good reason whilst you sit around pointing fingers doing nothing yourself. Also, some of the board were in attendance at the protests albeit not led by us. But don’t let the truth stand in the way of your narrative. It would be a lot easier to step aside, do you really think they want this stress on themselves from people like you? The trust have continually said they want new people and ideas to get involved.

Just to set the record straight, 1 trust committee member showed at the protest, nobody else which personally felt like a slap in the face after the trust after pressure from all the other groups decided to back it! (Im 99% sure on that number but if proven wrong then I hold my hands up)

As for wanting new people, the trust last week emailed me asking for me to help and get involved. I for one applaud that, I would happily join the committee tomorrow and give it my all and plead my case to the others for a change in stance, if I am outvoted so be it but better to sit down and debate this properly than continued back and forth over an internet forum.

@OldBlueLady Kay just to pick up on a point you made about Paul Fitz talking to Ron, you are totally correct Paul has been firm that’s not in dispute but what has it achieved in the long run? This just goes back to my point that I personally don’t feel the trust should be engaging with Ron Martin anymore and the way forward is to make that stance public and that the trust will now work to help facilitate new ownership of the football club.

Lastly many have said let’s wait and he will sell the club after the stadium is built, well a few years back I would have settled for that but since then from what I can see the new stadium has lot most if not all it’s non match day revenue generation which was the whole idea in the first place! My fear is we go down this road we build it he then sells it and we are in a situation where we have an expensive stadium we don’t own (as there has been no proof that it will go to the club) and that does not generate anything for us when the football is not on.
 
Just to set the record straight, 1 trust committee member showed at the protest, nobody else which personally felt like a slap in the face after the trust after pressure from all the other groups decided to back it! (Im 99% sure on that number but if proven wrong then I hold my hands up)

As for wanting new people, the trust last week emailed me asking for me to help and get involved. I for one applaud that, I would happily join the committee tomorrow and give it my all and plead my case to the others for a change in stance, if I am outvoted so be it but better to sit down and debate this properly than continued back and forth over an internet forum.

@OldBlueLady Kay just to pick up on a point you made about Paul Fitz talking to Ron, you are totally correct Paul has been firm that’s not in dispute but what has it achieved in the long run? This just goes back to my point that I personally don’t feel the trust should be engaging with Ron Martin anymore and the way forward is to make that stance public and that the trust will now work to help facilitate new ownership of the football club.

Lastly many have said let’s wait and he will sell the club after the stadium is built, well a few years back I would have settled for that but since then from what I can see the new stadium has lot most if not all it’s non match day revenue generation which was the whole idea in the first place! My fear is we go down this road we build it he then sells it and we are in a situation where we have an expensive stadium we don’t own (as there has been no proof that it will go to the club) and that does not generate anything for us when the football is not on.
I make you right. After constant questions, we've still not seen any tangible cashflow forecasts regarding how SUFC will become a sustainable club. What started as leasing shop/business units, cinema, hotels, function rooms etc, has now become residential blocks (do we profit from these ? I doubt it !). I don't think he has the funds to carry it through, so he's having to raise money bit by bit as he releases equity in each plot of land etc. It's going to take many years to complete...by which time, we'll be bust !
 
Scott can I just say…thanks for not giving up mate. It’s people like you, with the club in your blood, that we need.
Very kind of you mate (sorry I don’t know your real name)
However as I have said before this is not about personalities and certainly not about me or any individual. We can only enact change by working together, sadly though a bit like the U.K. in general the fan base is divided as shown by the poll results so far.
If the trust want me to come onboard then I’m up for it but what I won’t do is not speak my mind.

End of the day we all want the same thing and that’s security and success for Southend, the problem we are having is deciding the method to achieve that.
 
Just to set the record straight, 1 trust committee member showed at the protest, nobody else which personally felt like a slap in the face after the trust after pressure from all the other groups decided to back it! (Im 99% sure on that number but if proven wrong then I hold my hands up)

As for wanting new people, the trust last week emailed me asking for me to help and get involved. I for one applaud that, I would happily join the committee tomorrow and give it my all and plead my case to the others for a change in stance, if I am outvoted so be it but better to sit down and debate this properly than continued back and forth over an internet forum.

@OldBlueLady Kay just to pick up on a point you made about Paul Fitz talking to Ron, you are totally correct Paul has been firm that’s not in dispute but what has it achieved in the long run? This just goes back to my point that I personally don’t feel the trust should be engaging with Ron Martin anymore and the way forward is to make that stance public and that the trust will now work to help facilitate new ownership of the football club.

Lastly many have said let’s wait and he will sell the club after the stadium is built, well a few years back I would have settled for that but since then from what I can see the new stadium has lot most if not all it’s non match day revenue generation which was the whole idea in the first place! My fear is we go down this road we build it he then sells it and we are in a situation where we have an expensive stadium we don’t own (as there has been no proof that it will go to the club) and that does not generate anything for us when the football is not on.
I’m personally all for alternate views, I don’t have to agree with you but balance is a good thing in any discussion 👍
 
I’m personally all for alternate views, I don’t have to agree with you but balance is a good thing in any discussion 👍
A good mantra I have always believed in is that I may not agree with your views but will fight and die for you to have the right to voice it.

Drop me a PM let’s try move this forward
 
I guess the fact they they highlighted the situation to Stan Collymore makes it NOT a complete waste of time... but I wouldn't place too much credence on the pitch invasion, for instance. Any change or progress is down to Stan getting involved. I doubt very much would have happened if he had not thrown his weight behind the effort and engineered the change he has.
I thought Stan was aware before the protest, no? He asked for protests not to go ahead.
Seems to me, Stan has always kept an eye on us 😍
 
Back
Top