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.

 

[Can't think of a gimmick]

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.

I'd say that's a bit of deflection personally.

If the Trust had a thriving membership, then a small number of muppets wouldn't be able to even attempt a coup.

Agree wouldn't want you know who involved, but being blunt yet again, it's hardly like Trust have any power, control or influence.
As for the even bigger you know who, he of bushy eyebrow fame, didn't the Trust chair have to clarify that despite Trust putting out a statement that appeared anti Tan, his meeting with Hammam was purely on a personal basis and not on Trust business?

 

[Snoops]

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.

The ballot papers were blank meaning they could have been tampered with/added extra votes and the FSA agreed so the new papers were sent out numbered. As for names, there was no requisite for names to be added as 1) the form was a 2 page form with page 1 being the nomination form which included the candidates name, and 2) it was made out that the text provided would be added to the web page/ballot pack so naturally one would take that as somebody would type them all out accordingly

 

[Snoops]

As for what TDA is elaborating too, if AA was intent on taking over the trust then why isn’t he standing as a candidate??

Also I do believe the chairman should not be re standing for election as, according to the rules they set out and agreed last AGM, he has sat on the board for more than the allowed 12 years, meaning he can not officially stand this head as he must take a year away before restating. This isn’t about hounding Keith out, this is about the Trust rules being followed and adhered too, nothing sinister in wanting the Trust to achieve its goals within their own set rules

 

[Can't think of a gimmick]

As for what TDA is elaborating too, if AA was intent on taking over the trust then why isn’t he standing as a candidate??

Also I do believe the chairman should not be re standing for election as, according to the rules they set out and agreed last AGM, he has sat on the board for more than the allowed 12 years, meaning he can not officially stand this head as he must take a year away before restating. This isn’t about hounding Keith out, this is about the Trust rules being followed and adhered too, nothing sinister in wanting the Trust to achieve its goals within their own set rules

Because AA has the self-awareness to know how fucking toxic he is, so wouldn't get votes other than from his acolytes. Easy to control patsies.

As for the second part, no idea, can only take your word for it.

 

[Gary Madine's Fight Club]

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.

... Voldemort?

 

[Can't think of a gimmick]

... Voldemort?

Lee Baddeley?