This thing at Garrison on Tuesday...

Wait, what do you mean by I've no faith in the supporters trust? Genuinely interested as to where you got that from?

Edit: sorry, no I get what you're saying now.

 

Erm....If I understand you correctly:

1.Yes it's my opinion that the Owners are damaging the Club. I've no evidence that it is malicious but Imo there is 4 years evidence of incompetence on a scale I've not seen here for 50 years.
2. Consequently, my own view is; it is pretty pointless trying to engage with them (even if they ever came to the Country!) to try to seek 'improvements'. 4 years is enough thank you very much, and the concern is, if something doesn't happen whereby they state their intention to put the Club up for sale (though some posters claim this has already been done) then the next 4 years will make the last 4 look like a 'golden age'!

But to be frank, none of that is relevant - it's only my opinion. What I was trying to find out from you was a) The View of the ST on the Owners and b) whether the Trust might at some stage present some kind of supporter leadership if they ever did take a view that the Owners were bad news for the Club/Town/Country/Universe...... You can't seem to answer that question and I'm now concerned that I'm putting this all on you - one individual - so I'll stop, because that is clearly unfair.

3000 Members! Thank you. I would call that significant.

 

Yes he certainly was deadly Albert PowerPoint back in the day.

 

Thing is, at the end of the day it was a meeting held in a pub. It wasn't Boris Johnson on news at 6, flanked by his mindless minders Whitty and Vallance. At the point at which Luke was wrapping up, somebody could have said - because we live in a free-speech democracy still - 'just one question...' The answer, even if he dismissed it, would have spoke volumes. It sounds like a very respectful evening, I don't think someone asking the question in a polite way at the end (even if out of the blue) would have been unreasonable, or out of the question.

 

Maybe but he was there in front of a crowd for people to question him further , always different from a one to one / two interview . Or get the nipple clamps and scrotum jump leads out

 

There is zero point wasting your time as you did speaking to someone who either cannot or will not answer the questions. It is completely pointless. We had you do that no point doing it again.

A couple of years ago when Wilson was sacked and Dyson organised a meeting in the no7 Patrick attended and questions were asked and answered. That had some kind of point.

The relationship between the ST and club is seen by many, myself included, as too close to the club. I understand you may feel that’s unfair but nothing you will say will alter that perception.

I have little interest in the Facebook group but it was 100% right not to get too involved in the sort of Q&As that the ST gets involved in which rarely elicit anything useful.

 

I see them as being a toothless organisation too close to the club and yes this goes back to stuff from the 90s to a degree and certainly the post admin formation of the ST.

it’s a voluntary groups with zero perks so would never knock the individuals involved but i see it as being pretty pointless.

 

I do understand that and i get that it can feel very different in the room on the night. But people are pointing at Luke and saying he missed an opportunity to question the CEO, and I do think those in attendance missed an opportunity to question Luke. He must have been knackered at the end of his presentation, it was the perfect opportunity People have come away instead and questioned what it was all about online, but they could have used the end of the prezzo as an opp to get that question in there and then.

 

Sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick (I've edited my earlier comment to reflect that) I though you said I had no faith in the ST.

My fault, I misread your comment.

 

That is helpful.

Can I try to reciprocate. For me personally, I now know the Trust cannot help (at the moment) in providing any leadership with the aim of getting the Owners to put the Club up for sale and then leave. That's fine.

A lesson from history regarding these matters. I don't think the Trust have a infinite amount of time to get the answers you speak of and then come to a view as to how they wish to progress things. As the days/weeks/months progress the experience in other Clubs tells us that positions become very entrenched. Whether it is fair or not different Supporters Groups are perceived as taking one position (pro regime) or not (anti regime). The pro regime groups are then seen as potentially 'part of the problem'. There's only so much time you can sit on a fence before the splinters start to impact!

 

I think that one question could have been asked, just my view

 

I pretty much agree with you post, however this bit puzzles…

Whilst they’re often referred to as ‘the 80% mob’ etc, I was under the impression that Barnsley football club is 100% owned by a consortium which the Cryne’s have a 20% stake in.
So it’s not an 80/20 ownership split, but more like a 45, 20,15, 10, 5, 5 split (you get my drift), with the Cryne family owning the 20% section

 

This is correct, and it's something that Luke's presentation wasn't very clear on yesterday. Listening to it, I thought that people would have gained the impression that there was an 80:20 split in the shareholding of BFC itself.

In all fairness, this is an easy mistake to make (I've done so myself in posts on here previously), but is something that isn't generally well understood across the wider fanbase.

 

My views go back to the post admin change which aligned the ST more squarely with the club. The change from the old supporters club which was much more independent and involved in national movements to improve the lot of fans. As I said you will disagree and I respect that but nothing other than it reverting to a looser relationship will convince me and that’s not on the cards.

Again we won’t agree the point of a group like the Facebook one isn’t for cosy (or otherwise) chats with the CE it’s to get rid of him and those behind him. Your aims are completely different. The approach should be completely different.