Cardiff City Supporters' Trust elections 2026

[TDA]

This messageboard and that of Mike Morris took a stand against a group that tried to force elections in the Supporters' Trust late last year.

The result of our actions was that the attempted coup was abandoned.

Having read the personal statements of the candidates for the upcoming scheduled elections, it seems clear to me that the primary objective of those incomers is to create what is in effect a pressure group to hold the ownership accountable and force through actions such as debt to equity conversion.

That is not the historic mandate of the Supporters' Trust and there is precious little evidence in the candidates' declarations of a desire to take on and develop the original ideals.

I am not prepared to support the candidates who have aligned themselves to such change.

 

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

With a couple of the candidates it's pretty clear what they're after. Some I'm not sure about. Do you know which ones are aligned to AA?

 

[TDA]

A reminder of the background to this ........

City's Supporters' Trust under attack? - Cardiff City Forum

The established board of Cardiff City Supporters’ Trust is coming under severe pressure from a group of individuals who have recently joined en bloc. Regardless of what the incomers have been maintaining, the logical conclusion is that they are seeking to gain control of an established avenue...

cardiffcityforum.com

 

[Can't think of a gimmick]

Well, it seems to me if the membership numbers are that small a coup could be attempted, then there are numerous issues other than the coup.

"That is not the historic mandate of the Supporters' Trust and there is precious little evidence of a desire to take on and develop the original ideals.".

Things change over time. The evidence (or lack thereof) would be the democratic vote for Trust boar membership, surely?

It reads as if there are issues with both the message AND how they went about it. I'd agree on the latter, but doing down the message seems silly.

 

[TDA]

The evidence (or lack thereof) would be the democratic vote for Trust boar membership, surely?

I was referring to the content of the candidates' declarations. I'll edit my post to make that clearer.

 

[Gary Madine's Fight Club]

I was surprised that the prior set of elections turned out to be done improperly.

The candidates not even putting their names on the documents or not providing the correct paper to vote on (I think that's what it was, I've sent my votes back already) was very poor for an organisation that should be used to doing these annually.

Although I only signed up a year ago in order to stop the AAMB take over I thought it interesting just how many of the candidates also joined a year ago and all sit in the Ninian - I presume together.

The last thing the CCST needs is AA and his group of cronies attempting a takeover.

 

[Can't think of a gimmick]

I was surprised that the prior set of elections turned out to be done improperly.

The candidates not even putting their names on the documents or not providing the correct paper to vote on (I think that's what it was, I've sent my votes back already) was very poor for an organisation that should be used to doing these annually.

Although I only signed up a year ago in order to stop the AAMB take over I thought it interesting just how many of the candidates also joined a year ago and all sit in the Ninian - I presume together.

The last thing the CCST needs is AA and his group of cronies attempting a takeover.

I agree on that part but let's be blunt.

The Trust has failed to get any mandate from the fanbase in general. It took that lot launching a coup for the Trust to release what the actual membership base is.

The fact the Trust had a spike in membership from those wanting to take over and those wanting to prevent a takeover, rather than joining on the merits of the Trust in and of itself is damning.

 

[Gary Madine's Fight Club]

I agree on that part but let's be blunt.

The Trust has failed to get any mandate from the fanbase in general. It took that lot launching a coup for the Trust to release what the actual membership base is.

The fact the Trust had a spike in membership from those wanting to take over and those wanting to prevent a takeover, rather than joining on the merits of the Trust in and of itself is damning.

I'm kinda with you, kinda not.

For me, a lot of relies on the different strata of fans.

I think a huge amount of it is that the Trust, by nature, is going to be the most dedicated fans, or 9/10 out of 10s most dedicated (probably not looks).

Then you've got a tier below which is folk like us at the 7/8 out of 10 who are more committed to the club enough to join and pay for a messageboard and are familiar with the trust.

Them below that you've got everyone else who goes to games and maybe pops on AAMB occasionally to look at transfer rumours (like my old man) who doesn't know what the trust is or what it does.

I don't think we've got many people in the top 2 tiers, but we've got enough people - like Annis - who can get people behind them and try and take over and equivalent people (like myself) who were willing to join to stop them which is why I don't think it's so damning. It's more to me people either don't care about (or were happy with the status quo inside of) the trust and were willing to act to stop it changing, which I don't see as damning.

I was happy with the trust as I thought they'd done a good enough job in difficult circumstances as I think the club are pretty difficult under Tan to deal with or to even bring to the table in the first place. I'd far rather have that than someone like the dEaR lEaDeR taking it over to blow up his sense of self-importance even more and try to recoup some of his iTk status he missed since the days of Hammam and Ridsdale.

 

[Woody]

This messageboard and that of Mike Morris took a stand against a group that tried to force elections in the Supporters' Trust late last year.

The result of our actions was that the attempted coup was abandoned.

Having read the personal statements of the candidates for the upcoming scheduled elections, it seems clear to me that the primary objective of those incomers is to create what is in effect a pressure group to hold the ownership accountable and force through actions such as debt to equity conversion.

That is not the historic mandate of the Supporters' Trust and there is precious little evidence in the candidates' declarations of a desire to take on and develop the original ideals.

I am not prepared to support the candidates who have aligned themselves to such change.

What is the historic mandate of the club, in your view?

I would have thought that items like "hold the ownership accountable and force through actions such as debt to equity conversion" would sit very much within the Trust's remit.

I've read through the candidates' statements and they're all fairly balanced and articulate, which of the club's original ideas do you consider to be absent?

 

[TDA]

I agree on that part but let's be blunt.

The Trust has failed to get any mandate from the fanbase in general. It took that lot launching a coup for the Trust to release what the actual membership base is.

The fact the Trust had a spike in membership from those wanting to take over and those wanting to prevent a takeover, rather than joining on the merits of the Trust in and of itself is damning.

I think that is of secondary importance to heading off what is a thinly veiled hostile takeover, with you know waiting who in the background.

 

[TDA]

What is the historic mandate of the club, in your view?

I would have thought that items like "hold the ownership accountable and force through actions such as debt to equity conversion" would sit very much within the Trust's remit.

I've read through the candidates' statements and they're all fairly balanced and articulate, which of the club's original ideas do you consider to be absent?

I think you have to read between the lines of the statements and look back at the October debate to see what is really going on here.

 

[Woody]

I think you have to read between the lines of the statements and look back at the October debate to see what is really going on here.

Respectfully, it would be quicker for you to explain what you posted, which is why I asked.

I do understand there is a bigger picture but am interested in why you think the newcomers' objectives are at odds with the trust's mandate.