Andy b

You fancy meeting for a pint McFluff? Would be good to talk through some of your points here. thanks

Balanced summary - thanks. We have to put the owner’s stated willingness to put the fans at the heart of the club to the test. That is essentially what the next step is about.

I have heard that 12 apps have been received. That may have been mentioned yesterday. Not sure from who.

Not far wrong that should say. Though i would say assertive rather than confrontational. the lack of formal engagement has always been an issue and all trust members were in agreement on that. The fact that there is no board/board meetings is symptomatic of that

Spot on mike. its the lack of formal discussions, with a set purpose, which is the issue. Without such meetings there has been little means of asking questions, probing and getting our view across. We seek a step change in how we make our presence felt with the owner and hold him to account. I wouldn’t automatically characterise that as confrontational

Hi League One, my personal view is also that I would rather have a club in non league that I can be proud of and is moving in the right direction than a club in league 2 which is not. I don’t really fear further relegations if that’s a means to an end. In terms of what we can materially affect, we are not wholly sure. However, we have to first try and get the owner to make changes through a more direct and assertive approach. He needs to be held to account. The trust will do this working to a mandate from the fans. We have to pursue agreed next steps and see what happens. If that doesn’t gain any traction then we review options and go again. A further fans meet is likely to be convened for this. It is conceivable that the trust endorses and actively promotes a boycott of the club at some point. However, true to the trust’s purpose, we have to be sure that is the right thing to do for the long term good of the club (and that’s not an immediately easy conclusion to come to, though I understand the case for it). We also probably have to go through several other steps before we get there, not least because there is evidently no majority concensous for a boycott at this point. Fans will adopt their own means of making their views felt of course and i suspect enough will boycott to make the owner feel it. what is also clear is that many fans will not review season tickets at this time.

No far wrong

You will gather from today that we have resolved to canvas views from fans and make some very clear requests of the owner in a more direct manner. That is a step change in approach, put it that way.

Please understand the distinction between a formal and informal form of engagement. The former has not happened nearly enough. That’s the point. Dont understand why you are getting bogged down in the minutiae. The big picture issue is that the trust has not been able to properly engage with owner in the manner needed to ask questions, get answers and get our views across.

As has been reported today, the trust does not know a great deal more than what is in the public domain. That is a result of the limited comms we have had with the owner and the extent to which those comms have been worthwhile and productive. That was made clear today I felt. the resignation has nothing to do with what Diane heard from the owner and whether she agreed with it or not it is about our approach to the owner going forward and how we put our views out into the public domain.

As in chance encounters or a conversation in passing at a game. That’s been the recent extent of contact. That’s not really conducive to properly questioning the owner on key matters. no proper scheduled between Diane and the owner for months and no meeting with the wider trust at all (as reported).

Diane has had some contact with him in her previous role. She attended matches with him etc but he has not met the wider trust, nor has he met Diane in any formal capacity for some time.

That’s not what I said. There was a difference in opinion in how to best make our presence felt with the owner and the extent to which we should be more assertive and subsequently be open about this in the public domain.

Difference of opinion with respect to future approach to the owner. The trust has resolved to take a more assertive (though I would stress not confrontational) approach reflected in today’s meet and agreed next steps.

Haven’t got the foggiest about any steve Morgan rumour. Is there one?

Thanks. That’s what we want. Clear expressions of what fans want to see from the club and how we want to see it behaving towards its fans. That starts to provide the trust with a mandate

And that’s fine. We need to bring all of that to the surface.

We backed a peaceful demonstration and it was being planned on that basis (by others). my point is that ‘whipping up fans in a protest against the owner’ has somewhat different connotations.

Today is not a protest. Read the agenda and associated press releases. It’s bringing fans together to understand and define the collect concerns which fans have and agree a means of making those clear to the owner. That is not a protest in the sense you are clearly alluding to. There is no whipping up of fans here. The trust does not seek to adopt a confrontational stance towards the owner rather we aim for constructive engagement and to effect positive change where needed. Please don’t misunderstand what the objectives of today’s meeting are and the trust’s stance and approach towards the current issues at the club

Well said Andy b 100. within that you have also got to come to a view as to why you don’t trust him (if that’s what you are saying). We need a diagnosis on AL’s tenure to date.

Today’s meet is not about the ground acquisition, it is about concerns around the responsible stewardship of the club culminating in one of the greatest players this country has ever produced deciding after 1 month that he couldn’t operate under the conditions presented to him. It’s about signals (that’s all they are at this stage) that the club is not being run responsibility potentially putting its existence at threat and that fans want to voice their concerns the trust is not buying the ground and is not party to all the detail at this stage. Our named liaison with the fan led group is not present today am afraid. We will endeavour to provide as much of an update as poss.

Broadly speaking, my understanding is that the council has to be formally notified if current owners make a move to sell. 6 months grace is then provided during which time the owners cannot sell, to enable a community group to table a deal. A notice will go up at BP when the notification to the council has been made. No such notice has been placed at BP as yet to my knowledge. a receipt of an offer to buy the land (outside of a process of attempting to sell the land) doesn’t trigger the ACV process (as outlined above) as far as I am aware. we are not aware of any formal attempt by the owner to buy the ground

It doesn’t it and that’s a fair point

All a bit in the dark if am honest. Planned over the last c48 hours.

*positive dialogue between clubs and fans that is we need to be making requests and demands (and constructive suggestions) to the owner about the running of the club. Q and As are very interesting but they won’t effect actual change. We first need clarity over what we as fans want to see from the owner. A mandate is then given to the trust to go and make it happen. Fundamentally he needs to be open to external ideas and influences. It’s not just about him sharing his perspectives and insights as per last night. That doesn’t really go anywhere.