Home
Finding the right pitch has been a perpetual problem for the Supporters’ Trust since the very worst of the club’s financial problems went away last year.
At one stage, passionate fans scrabbled together in unison trying to ensure Wanderers did not go out of existence altogether.
But once the need for emergency action had been avoided, finding a niche which satisfied everyone has proved a difficult task for all involved.
The hastiness with which the trust was assembled meant – organisationally-speaking – it played catch-up for the first six months. By the time it was fully-formed, interest had dipped to the extent no proper elections could be held. And that presented a big target for critics who had questioned the motives of those who helped form the early steering group.
Very few fans dispute the need for the BWFCST to exist, whether it be to give its members a greater say in running the club, as a body to hold the powers that be more accountable, or simply as a safety net should the worst happen again.
Exactly how far each agenda should be pushed, however, has created discord, even among the trust’s hierarchy.
It has always been claimed by the BWFCST their actions adhere to guidelines set down by Supporters Direct and by the mandate issued by their members.
Yet when they have been pressed into action, the tone and timing of some of the trust’s communications have not been well-received.
Getting the right blend between support and questioning governance at Wanderers is a big test for new chairman Daniel Izza as the trust heads towards their elections this autumn.
That they have reached this point is down to the graft of volunteers like former chairman, Ian Bridge, and many others who are still actively involved.
The test now is to convince the club, its members and the wider Wanderers audience that the hard work was worth it.
Source
At one stage, passionate fans scrabbled together in unison trying to ensure Wanderers did not go out of existence altogether.
But once the need for emergency action had been avoided, finding a niche which satisfied everyone has proved a difficult task for all involved.
The hastiness with which the trust was assembled meant – organisationally-speaking – it played catch-up for the first six months. By the time it was fully-formed, interest had dipped to the extent no proper elections could be held. And that presented a big target for critics who had questioned the motives of those who helped form the early steering group.
Very few fans dispute the need for the BWFCST to exist, whether it be to give its members a greater say in running the club, as a body to hold the powers that be more accountable, or simply as a safety net should the worst happen again.
Exactly how far each agenda should be pushed, however, has created discord, even among the trust’s hierarchy.
It has always been claimed by the BWFCST their actions adhere to guidelines set down by Supporters Direct and by the mandate issued by their members.
Yet when they have been pressed into action, the tone and timing of some of the trust’s communications have not been well-received.
Getting the right blend between support and questioning governance at Wanderers is a big test for new chairman Daniel Izza as the trust heads towards their elections this autumn.
That they have reached this point is down to the graft of volunteers like former chairman, Ian Bridge, and many others who are still actively involved.
The test now is to convince the club, its members and the wider Wanderers audience that the hard work was worth it.
Source
