Yes, which is why I stuck to my guns until OLM made the effort to repost them, which I appreciate. It is clear which came first, it is also clear there is an obligation on owners, which I pointed out some time ago.
There’s nothing democratic about not letting the fans have any say over who’s on the Supporters Committee ffs.
The obligation is to follow the EFL rules and that is what the club is doing. The EFL rules do not mention supporters trusts. I would ask this question, why was a copy of the guidelines sent to the club and given out to the committee at the cancelled meeting. It wasn’t done to open the door for the trust, who already were attending. So what was it’s purpose? Could it have been to force the club to have to have members of the protest groups on the committee?
You mean like when you were on the SAG? I think it is a poor effort to make changes just to suit an agenda that now becomes obvious after the protest groups statement, they wanted an unconditional seat at the table and when this was denied the Trust rolled out the EFL guidlines in order to force the issue. They got it wrong and now you try to deflect the debate. How democratic is it when the supporter base does not know who is running the protest groups? Which group gets a seat at the table? **** me its poor when a ****ing fat twat like me can pull this apart. If you are going to promote a view at least get it ****ing right.
I'm sure we could do a lot better, maybe I should say 'fuller', why not use the Ticketmaster system which acts as a kind of stock exchange to find the optimum prices?
I don’t understand the question, the fans voted me onto the SAG? As for the rest of that drivel, **** off you apologist ****, I’m deflecting nothing.
Has anyone on here serious suggested the protest group should have a seat? (genuine question) I can understand the trust asking, but I never thought they would, and definitely not while they are anonymous I thought the point was being made about democratic representation referred to the stand reps that the club had just chosen from applicants (I probably misunderstood though)
You mean like when you were on the SAG? The statement issued by the protest group sets out what is really happening. They want an unconditional seat at the table and the trust is try to force this through. A group that is anonymous to the supporter base, by its own admission, will be self elected to the committee on the back of someone reading the rules wrong, democracy in action eh OLM. Posters accused the club of cherry picking, but at least we know who is to sit in the meetings, what’s going to happen if they get an invite, will they turn up wearing hoods?
Which is what I've said from the outset and what has added to my thinking. The Trust is mentioned in the formation documents and the Allams would have been mindful of keeping the Trust a bit closer. It's all there to be seen. You should ask those who sent them, as I would only have an opinion. I do believe there were some poor decisions made by the Trust; then again, I think the OSC has been more than a tad daft at times and should stop this finger wagging.
I think in a sinister way this is partially what the Allams were hoping to do - alienate the 'old guard' and replace them with depoliticised 'customers' who will support their favoured 'brand' and will pay whatever it costs.
And OLM and the Trust have got it wrong. That’s the point, they have got it wrong. Your first question, yes that is what it is all about, that’s what was behind the meeting getting cancelled.
The OSC isn’t finger wagging, I am. No one can ever challenge the trust, it simply isn’t allowed, look at OLMs reaction. No one can ever say that they have got it wrong and no one will admit that there is another agenda behind this and that is to get the protest groups at the table. You are always challenging the reason for the Trusts attending and I get that. Pointing out that the saintly trust has made a mistake leads straight to abuse and if that is democracy in action fine. If I am wrong I will put my hand up to it, but others nah.
