This thing at Garrison on Tuesday...

Just looking at the Supporters Trust website, when I click (out of interest) on 'Aims and Objectives' and 'Trust Board' I am directed to something called 'Catch Tiger', which seems to be concerned with the registration of domain names. Is there an issue with the site, Loko?

 

I'm sure Gally or Loko will correct me if I'm wrong on any of this but, as general background, the 'distrust' of the Trust has existed for as long as it has been in existence, and actually pre-dates it as it goes back to the early/mid 1990's when the Supporters Club was originally set up.

The Supporters Club was subject to long-standing criticism based on the individuals who were running it. In particular, Alan Bloore came in for a lot of criticism in this regard, for reasons that I could never quite fathom, other than that people claimed to have never heard of him at the time it was set up. The Supporters Club was a great success and used to run regular monthly meetings where players, staff, sponsors and ownership from the club would give their time freely to answer questions in a pretty much unfiltered manner on a near-monthly basis. Alan also got involved with the national scene, such as the FSF, in his role as the original chairman.

IIRC, the Trust was established as a consequence of BFC's administration, and was set up in a more formal manner than the Supporters Club to allow for its involvement in a possible takeover, but the Exec consisted largely of those people who had run the Supporters Club. It was originally heavily involved in fundraising efforts to effectively keep the club running during administration, including the campaign to have names put on individual seats within Oakwell (some of which still survive). For example, one option was a lifetime membership, which explains why I have a membership card to it with an expiry date of 31/07/2100.

Over the years, those individuals seen as being the spearhead of the Trust have changed, and there's little doubt that it's now seen as being Gally and Loko who are the faces of it. Personally, I think it's the best recognised face of supporter opinion that we have available but, unlike many other clubs, it doesn't have an overwhelming mandate in this regard, which I believe is a hangover of underlying suspicion going back many years. I think Gally and Loko have always been careful not to act as if the Trust has such an overwhelming mandate of supporter views, which perhaps explains some of the caution they have in expressing its views as being such.

 

Can't answer that - I didn't go. I just watched the stream.

Maybe someone who went can help?

 

My view, as a Facebook viewer, was that Luke pretty much shut this option down as he closed this speech by referring to questions around the investors that he wasn't going to answer publicly and that he'd share more information within the group as to their plans for protest in the coming days.

Someone else then took to the stage almost immediately afterwards to apologise to Bev for the events of Saturday, after which the video feed was shut off.

 

Apologies, I thought you were in attendance. It's a valid question though isn't it, for those that were there, especially those who were disappointed with how it panned out.

 

Thank you.

 

Agreed.

 

Under Lee Johnson.

 

To be fair we were critical of Patrick Crynes running of the club and for him to tweak the plan. I totally understand everyone's frustration at how this season is going and the mistakes made in the summer. This has been happening since Administration. Paul Heckingbottom got fed up with it Keith Hill, Danny Wilson, Andy Ritchie, too. There are claims made about the owners, which I don't think can be substantiated.
If I was running a football club, I would deal with a organised supporter group,which has rules but also decants information to all other supporters freely. As opposed to podcasters and others,which is not to deride them.
The supporter base do not have any ownership of the club but those who live in the town have part ownership of the stadium grounds. Why would the owner of any business just go away because some customers wished it? How would they retrieve their investment? Who would take over? Would customers be happy with the new owner? The financial risk is with the owners, not me or possibly you.
The ownership group and model,meaning that they are on different continents, doesn't help in the running of a small Yorkshire football club, in my opinion. It is what it is and we have to deal with it or find an alternative.
I have found it depressing over the past months or so, reading the circular arguments, attacks and insults. Where has it got us all?
In PR terms, I would advise the ownership group to admit their mistakes of 2021. Be clear where they went wrong and how. Explain what the plan going forward is,yes there is one but we don't know what it is.
Now for possiibly the bit where I will get most abuse. If the minority group (20%), Cryne family have no plans for a reverse takeover, then they should come up with a sale figure and put it to the majority owners. Some of the problems the club has, is due to this ownership split,it's not worked and will continue to hinder the club going forward as a business. It means someone has to buy the other out.
I'm quite happy for the club to rent it's facilities.
I believe that whatever faction you belong to or no faction at all, supporters wish the best for the club,the team and everyone who works there. Hoping that it will continue to exist, possibly in difficult circumstances for many years to come.

 

"...next slide please. As you can see, we're under-utilising bomb alley by 63%".

 

Just on the point about the Crynes 20% holding. It's inconsequential and deems them a minority interest. The 80% can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't breach the law or any contractual agreement.

They seem to largely take an 80% holding of most clubs they buy, so i expect it was perhaps at their insistence that the Crynes retained any stake.

 

There wasn't an opportunity for general questions after the presentation @Redarmy87 .

 

Make any decisions they want but retain a "it's not all our fault" buffer.

I've been guilty of getting suckered into that way of thinking to be honest.

 

I'm not sure they are risking their own money @ Kettlewell, they promote buying their clubs to investors in the same way you might do with a portfolio of property in Dubai.

 

He didn’t answer any relevant questions then so little point asking him the same questions with the same non answers.

 

But aren’t they the second largest share holders after Chien Lee and own 50% of the ground , which gives them a fair amount of leverage

 

you seem well informed. I presume you have been privy to all the conversations taking place. Spoken as someone who hasn’t been kept in the loop like you and has zero faith in either the Facebook group or the supporters Trust.

 

Ok...

 

Its irrelevant. If the 80% align, they can ignore anything the 20% want.

The Crynes own the ground, but thats just where we play football. It carries no sway at all in decision making. Indeed, its the 80% group that have been trying to use the Crynes ownership as a lever to reduce their own costs.