Trust Groundshare statement

[glos_robin]

...and of course a chance for Cliff Puffett to try out his nodding horse impression once again from the front row.

Oh god that was one of the most pathetic examples of staged support I have ever seen

[pauld]

How do you know the May deadline Paul? any chance Rovers could have got an extension?

We checked with a former Chief Exec of a leading Southwest football club a while back - if you think about it, the fixtures are out in a few weeks so they have to know before they start calculating those. Thinking about it though, it could be that Wovers could tell the League "We'll either be playing at Swindon or Cheltenham" and as long as both grounds are OK for League regs etc that would be good enough. Presumably it would only be a problem if they were proposing to go to a ground that hadn't been assessed for whether it was fit for League football recently (e.g. Twerton).

[Power to people]

How do you know the May deadline Paul? any chance Rovers could have got an extension?

We checked with a former Chief Exec of a leading Southwest football club a while back - if you think about it, the fixtures are out in a few weeks so they have to know before they start calculating those. Thinking about it though, it could be that Wovers could tell the League "We'll either be playing at Swindon or Cheltenham" and as long as both grounds are OK for League regs etc that would be good enough. Presumably it would only be a problem if they were proposing to go to a ground that hadn't been assessed for whether it was fit for League football recently (e.g. Twerton).

But they would need to ensure that both clubs are not home on the same weekend if the ground they go to are in the same league.

[pauld]

Well, yes, hence why they would need some indication by the end of May, but it may be possible that an "either or" situation could be accomodated by the fixtures computer, whereas once you get "one of the following four" (for example) that becomes exponentially harder to schedule.

[glos_robin]

Here is how i see it

They will not go ahead they will know this but still carry out the open meeting.

then they will announce that after consulting fans they have decided its not a good idea..

They think we are fucking stupid

 This thought crossed my mind, but its of no importance, just as long as the Sags don't end up at the CG.

Agree reg but the mavericks of the world will say the board have started to listen etc lets give them a chance

I'm getting increasing confused regarding the points that Maverick is trying to make but I notice he seems to be back on form with his Trust and consortium bashing today.

[Maverick]

Thought I had made it clear before that I am against the ground share - always have been and always will be - for me the sooner this is formally rejected publicly the better - end of.

Oh and remind me where I have been "Trust bashing" today??  :-))(

[Reg Smeeton]

Oh and remind me where I have been "Trust bashing" today??  :-))(

 Think its what is implied in this little snippet

 

I do not believe that the future is as bleak as some would like us to believe. However given the cause that they ardently support, it has to be said that any news put out from the club, or the fact that the club have failed to comment on something, or something has been found by trawling the net "googling" directors or their employees or advisors and their companies is inevitably going to be produced on forums as further "evidence" to support their case.

[Simon Pieman]

Frankly the whole Trust/Consortium vs Board of STFC thing is getting tiresome. But if people don't keep harping on about it, it may indicate to the Board that the people who want them out have given up.

[Maverick]

Oh and remind me where I have been "Trust bashing" today??  :-))(

 Think its what is implied in this little snippet

 

I do not believe that the future is as bleak as some would like us to believe. However given the cause that they ardently support, it has to be said that any news put out from the club, or the fact that the club have failed to comment on something, or something has been found by trawling the net "googling" directors or their employees or advisors and their companies is inevitably going to be produced on forums as further "evidence" to support their case.

Sorry Reg but I do not have a clue who belongs to the Trust and who doesn't. Also I hardly see the fact that I have a different point of view as "bashing" !

The "cause" I was referring to was the Consortium and not the Trust who, as I have always understood it, are involved in more than just the Consortium, such as the Red Army Fund and the Keep Town in Swindon campaign for example.

[Phil_S]

It's basically down to a lack of trust in the current board Maverick.