I don't know the history between sluffy and the supporters trust and at times I am probably at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of my views, however there are many views on the trust and all are valid, I don't doubt that there are those involved in the steering group that are there for self interest and likewise there will be some who are genuinely in it for the good of the club.
Those who want to point out the failings of the trust should rightly do so, perhaps if someone within the club had taken a similar stance we wouldn't be in such a mess, external criticism of any organisation should be listened to and taken on board, however it's rare for organisations especially immature ones to seek out such criticism, perhaps a reason why the steering group have stayed clear of Nuts?
In relation to the behaviour of the steering group, I understand some of the actions taken during the takeover saga, things started to go wrong with the preferred bidder declaration, clearly there was no need at this stage for the ST to get involved, some of the actions since then seem completely unnecessary and I am concerned that the steering group have lost focus on what a ST should be about.
To say that the Steering Group over stepped there mandate is, in my opinion wrong, there never was a mandate, but as the steering group put in place they had the same remit as a full ST until the elections are complete, I believe those with good intentions in the steering group have been led astray by both circumstance of the takeover and those with an agenda.
Given that the circumstances are now different and the looming elections that will hopefully see a shake up of the ST board I am hopeful that things will take a change for the better, as I still believe the club will be stronger with a properly run supporters trust.
Those who want to point out the failings of the trust should rightly do so, perhaps if someone within the club had taken a similar stance we wouldn't be in such a mess, external criticism of any organisation should be listened to and taken on board, however it's rare for organisations especially immature ones to seek out such criticism, perhaps a reason why the steering group have stayed clear of Nuts?
In relation to the behaviour of the steering group, I understand some of the actions taken during the takeover saga, things started to go wrong with the preferred bidder declaration, clearly there was no need at this stage for the ST to get involved, some of the actions since then seem completely unnecessary and I am concerned that the steering group have lost focus on what a ST should be about.
To say that the Steering Group over stepped there mandate is, in my opinion wrong, there never was a mandate, but as the steering group put in place they had the same remit as a full ST until the elections are complete, I believe those with good intentions in the steering group have been led astray by both circumstance of the takeover and those with an agenda.
Given that the circumstances are now different and the looming elections that will hopefully see a shake up of the ST board I am hopeful that things will take a change for the better, as I still believe the club will be stronger with a properly run supporters trust.