Supporters Trust letter to the Football league

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Does it to you?

That is my main issue here mutual trust relies on speaking directly to individuals involved, not running off to third parties, publishing private correspondence or demanding answers where you rightly point out you are not in a position to demand things.

In terms of what Anderson and holdsworth are doing to disenfranchise fans, they may have done nothing that has made the situation worse, yes wages are being paid, however they are taking a lot of time resolving the issues that exist like the accounts and embargos.

Yes they may have answered the steering groups questions partly,  however there is a view that they can answer questions until the cows come home, what is needed are actions that show the club is moving in the right direction.  For now I am personally willing to give the new owners more time, however that will wear thin as it has with others already.

The timing of the letter is wrong, the ST needs to be holding regular meetings with the owners, build a relationship and work with them. This letter makes that almost impossible.

So we end up with Owners that appear to be failing to take any action to deal with the current issues and a supporters trust that has completely isolated itself from those owners and is fast ruining any chance of being a credible voice for the fans.

Not a great start to a new era.

Sluffy wrote:

'Appear to be failing' or 'working on the issues in financial confidence' - which one is it do you think - as we only know the ST's take on things!

As I said above Holdsworth and Anderson are well within time to successfully fulfil all their financial obligations and who are we to know that this isn't exactly what they are doing and will achieve?

It would appear to me the interim leadership of the ST are agitating the situation for some reason best known to themselves, which is deliberately leading them and the yet to be elected ST board into direct conflict with Holdsworth and Anderson (or maybe they are being played perhaps by one of the partners against the other as Birch played them previously?).

Either way there appears no need for it and it clearly it is damaging for the establishment of mutual trust between the two.

All the more curious that the former Interim Chair of the ST Richard Hurst (who was brought in for corporate skills and expertise) seems to have disappeared from the scene without a word being said?

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

'Appear to be failing' or 'working on the issues in financial confidence' - which one is it do you think - as we only know the ST's take on things!

As I said above Holdsworth and Anderson are well within time to successfully fulfil all their financial obligations and who are we to know that this isn't exactly what they are doing and will achieve?

It would appear to me the interim leadership of the ST are agitating the situation for some reason best known to themselves, which is deliberately leading them and the yet to be elected ST board into direct conflict with Holdsworth and Anderson (or maybe they are being played perhaps by one of the partners against the other as Birch played them previously?).

Either way there appears no need for it and it clearly it is damaging for the establishment of mutual trust between the two.

All the more curious that the former Interim Chair of the ST Richard Hurst (who was brought in for corporate skills and expertise) seems to have disappeared from the scene without a word being said?

I believe that the answers fall somewhere in the middle ground as is usually the case, I think issues between Holdsworth and Anderson are hindering decision making and progress in dealing with the financial mess the club is in, as well as appointing the new manager, from my reading it seems Anderson is using his promised finance as leverage against Holdsworth.

Being in time and to fulfil their obligations is fine, but leaving submitting accounts until the eleventh hour does not instil a lot of confidence for either the fans or prospective investors.

As for motives, perhaps there are none and it is just inexperience, or the ST are meeting with complete resistance from the new ownership, unlikely but possible.

The steering group does appear to be breaking up perhaps a letter to supporters direct may answer a few of our questions?

JAH wrote:Did you join the ST Sluffy?

whatsgoingon wrote:I think a lot of this is down to the fact that the season is over and post season boredom is creeping in and people are reading between the lines on everything, I too have participated questioning both the ST and the owners.
However looking at things logically, from the ownerships point of view it is becoming increasingly apparent there are a few unpleasant surprises arising, a recent one being the Spearing and Wellington money. These are things that under normal circumstances good due diligence would pick up, however the amateurish (or was it clever/devious) way Eddy sold the club changing terms and generally distracting from issues like this means things would be missed usually to the detriment of the buyer. That said everything appears to be getting paid despite people questioning them, regarding the embargo and accounts you would have to say these extra costs have to be factored in before forecasts can be made so lets see what happens. Regarding the manager there appears to be indecision but the managerial merry-go round is in full swing at the moment so maybe patience is the right way, they are obviously not convinced by anyone sufficiently yet so the fact that new candidates are appearing on the market almost daily means we may be prudent to hang on, as an extra bonus we aren't paying any extra wages before we shed a load of flotsam and jetsam at the end of June. So despite things being stirred up against them there isn't anything that is pointing to the fact that we have dodgy owners and we are in the shit as some are trying to convince us.
Regarding the ST I think most people are in agreement that is principle it is a good thing, people also seem to be in agreement that the questions they are asking are relevant but after that it becomes a bit of a marmite situation of either very pro or very anti, but while I tend to be in agreement that they are overstepping the mark and appear to be power crazed, it is new territory to them and mistakes will be made. The fact that they are trying to get answers to questions really they have no given right to know the answers to and the clumsy way they are going about getting them can only be detrimental to the relationship between the club and the ST, so they need to think before they go charging in headlong. If I was one of the owners I wouldn't be in any rush to sit down and try and get the ST on board, my back would be up and I would treat them with the contempt they appear to hold the owners in, so if the ST wants to play a part in the club they need to start changing direction otherwise they are going to be pushed further and further away and will hold no value to anyone.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Paragraphs, paragraphs, paragraphs.

whatsgoingon wrote:I think a lot of this is down to the fact that the season is over and post season boredom is creeping in and people are reading between the lines on everything, I too have participated questioning both the ST and the owners.

However looking at things logically, from the ownerships point of view it is becoming increasingly apparent there are a few unpleasant surprises arising, a recent one being the Spearing and Wellington money. These are things that under normal circumstances good due diligence would pick up, however the amateurish (or was it clever/devious) way Eddy sold the club changing terms and generally distracting from issues like this means things would be missed usually to the detriment of the buyer. 

That said everything appears to be getting paid despite people questioning them, regarding the embargo and accounts you would have to say these extra costs have to be factored in before forecasts can be made so lets see what happens. Regarding the manager there appears to be indecision but the managerial merry-go round is in full swing at the moment so maybe patience is the right way, they are obviously not convinced by anyone sufficiently yet so the fact that new candidates are appearing on the market almost daily means we may be prudent to hang on, as an extra bonus we aren't paying any extra wages before we shed a load of flotsam and jetsam at the end of June. So despite things being stirred up against them there isn't anything that is pointing to the fact that we have dodgy owners and we are in the shit as some are trying to convince us.
Regarding the ST I think most people are in agreement that is principle it is a good thing, people also seem to be in agreement that the questions they are asking are relevant but after that it becomes a bit of a marmite situation of either very pro or very anti, but while I tend to be in agreement that they are overstepping the mark and appear to be power crazed, it is new territory to them and mistakes will be made. 
The fact that they are trying to get answers to questions really they have no given right to know the answers to and the clumsy way they are going about getting them can only be detrimental to the relationship between the club and the ST, so they need to think before they go charging in headlong. If I was one of the owners I wouldn't be in any rush to sit down and try and get the ST on board, my back would be up and I would treat them with the contempt they appear to hold the owners in, so if the ST wants to play a part in the club they need to start changing direction otherwise they are going to be pushed further and further away and will hold no value to anyone.