TRUST & SUPPORTERS CLUB MEETING WITH STEVE MURRALL

[sonicyouth]

I wasn't at yesterday's meeting and have not personally seen the 'Fredi' documents either. I'm not going to pretend to have knowledge that I don't.

I didn't imply that. I've always thought you were on the Trust board so was confused by the fact you had to read what the Trust had said, I must've mistaken you for someone else.

[thepeoplesgame]

I didn't imply that. I've always thought you were on the Trust board so was confused by the fact you had to read what the Trust had said, I must've mistaken you for someone else.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound arsey. I am on the Trust board, but I was trying to get across that everything referred to in my post was gleaned from freely available information and not through some secret knowledge that only we 'stonecutters' have access to.

[Dr Pierre Chang]

Me too Tails. I thought the 4-4-2 chant at Franchise last season was particularly cringe worthy. I seemed to be in a vocal minority though.

It was cringey but fuck me what a poor performance that was. No wonder people were pissed off having paid their hard earned to watch that negative rubbish.

As far as I am aware there have been no calls for Kmacs head bar a few mongs on Twitter, certainly not chants of more than the odd person at matches. But when rubbish like that is served up you have to expect fans to show their feelings.

[sonicyouth]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound arsey. I am on the Trust board, but I was trying to get across that everything referred to in my post was gleaned from freely available information and not through some secret knowledge that only we 'stonecutters' have access to.

I genuinely don't believe anyone views the Trust in that manner. I hadn't seen the comments regarding the documents on Twitter and couldn't see anything on the Trust site which had been recently updated hence my confusion.

Anyway, as others have said - is the document actually relevant given that it relates to last season and a budget agreed upon by a set of people who have subsequently departed? Without the Trust breaching any confidentiality, can it actually support any of fredi's many claims?

[Frigby Daser]

Not with some it would seem mate. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Not at all. The aim of these meetings, surely, is clarity. So when asked who owns the club and the response is McCrory, it is not unreasonable to ask whether he is the sole shareholder, ask for proof of the ownership of the hold co, ask whether, regardless of whose names the shares are in, whether any further arrangements are in place to control executive decisions - i.e. What is the involvement of the various individuals who appear to have influence but no official role.

Instead, for the sake of keeping friendly, it appears that nobody is prepared to delve into the detail.

[FreddySTFC!]

What was your point then? Why does people blaming the previous lot mean they have an agenda?

My point was that many individuals on here who back certain people to the hilt are oblivious to their clear allegiances towards others. I didn't mention my leanings either way, just that it's funny to see people daring to have a go at others for expressing their own views which may differ to that of their own. It's seems that having an opinion can often be considered a crime on here which is why I don't get involved in too much debate otherwise I'd have to quit my job & spend all day on here 

[DRS]

Thats a fair enough point. My main gripe like i said is how we have some that are so anti new board they wont have a bad word said about the old lot.

[FreddySTFC!]

Thats a fair enough point. My main gripe like i said is how we have some that are so anti new board they wont have a bad word said about the old lot.

I agree m8, it's fucking tedious but amusing at the same time. Like I said I tend to stay out of it because we (by that I mean everybody on here) could literally spend forever arguing about this. The fact of the matter is the majority of posters on the forum don't know anything that goes on behind the scenes making the 80% bollocks quota somewhat generous imo!!

[Dr Pierre Chang]

Not at all. The aim of these meetings, surely, is clarity. So when asked who owns the club and the response is McCrory, it is not unreasonable to ask whether he is the sole shareholder, ask for proof of the ownership of the hold co, ask whether, regardless of whose names the shares are in, whether any further arrangements are in place to control executive decisions - i.e. What is the involvement of the various individuals who appear to have influence but no official role.

Instead, for the sake of keeping friendly, it appears that nobody is prepared to delve into the detail.

Some sense at last.

Why aren't the Trust pushing these questions? No wonder they are seen as a laughing stock by many.

[thepeoplesgame]

I genuinely don't believe anyone views the Trust in that manner. I hadn't seen the comments regarding the documents on Twitter and couldn't see anything on the Trust site which had been recently updated hence my confusion.

Anyway, as others have said - is the document actually relevant given that it relates to last season and a budget agreed upon by a set of people who have subsequently departed? Without the Trust breaching any confidentiality, can it actually support any of fredi's many claims?

I honestly haven't seen it personally.

[sonicyouth]

Not at all. The aim of these meetings, surely, is clarity. So when asked who owns the club and the response is McCrory, it is not unreasonable to ask whether he is the sole shareholder, ask for proof of the ownership of the hold co, ask whether, regardless of whose names the shares are in, whether any further arrangements are in place to control executive decisions - i.e. What is the involvement of the various individuals who appear to have influence but no official role.

Instead, for the sake of keeping friendly, it appears that nobody is prepared to delve into the detail.

On the other hand, I'd suggest that it is probably wise for the Trust to play a friendly role to open up communication for the time being instead of going on an all-out attack based on the unsubstantiated, although concerning, rumours by an anonymous individual. I believe most of those questions have been asked already and received an albeit blunt response. Unless the Trust are in a position to counter those claims, why would they receive any other response should they persevere?

I honestly haven't seen it personally.

It wasn't a question aimed at you directly, more of a ponderous musing really.

[Fred Elliot]

I genuinely don't believe anyone views the Trust in that manner.

I do I am afraid

[sonicyouth]

I do I am afraid

You think they're the illuminati?

[Fred Elliot]

You think they're the illuminati?

No far from it mate, but there appears to be a shroud of secret boys club about it.

Certainly is putting people off getting involved

[Posh Red]

I haven't called for KMacs head and I've not hurled abuse at him but have questioned his choice of formation and tactics - so god knows which category you put me under...

It makes you a fan, we all question what the manager & players do from time to time.
What differentiates "the fan" from "the mong", is booing his own team when they make a mistake during a game.

Because as anyone with half a brain can work out, giving your own players dogs abuse during the game is not going to make them play any better.

Unfortunately, we seem to have quite a high proportion of "the mong"