Sheep.

[herthab]

At the risk of being classed a board 'apologist', a few things I picked up on after reading the statement last night from the board and the response it got from this forum.

Everything the board says is deemed lies and bollocks.

Everything the Consortium says is gospel and 24 carat.

There were (Albeit not many) a few interesting questions raised by the statement, but these were either ignored or overlooked by people too eager to post vitriol against the board.

The first letter sent to them by Mike Wilkes (If it was what was displayed) did appear a bit amateurish, surely you'd use your first written communication with the board to outline the most important factors in your offer, not go on about naming things after the Wills family.

The questioning of the consortium being seen as a fans consortium, when most of the financial clout is coming from Bill Power and Phil Emett (sp) This would presumably result in them also receiving a majority share after any takeover? Hardly a fans takeover?

I'm not saying the board should stay. They shouldn't as they are quite clearly not up to the job. I just wish people would refrain from knee jerk reactions when confronted by anything concerning the board and take a bit of time to actually formulate their own opinion.

As I've said before, there are a small percentage of people who actually know what is going on with regard to the takeover. The majority of us have to rely on what we're being told and it seems anything said by the board is instantly dismissed whilst everything said by Mike Wilkes is 100% kosher.

I know the board have a long history of being 'economical' with the truth, but that doesn't mean everything they say is bollocks, does it?

[pauld]

To be fair, hertha, I think you're being a bit harsh on your fellow TEF'ers. What we saw last night was as much as anything a frustrated howl of rage from fans who are sick to the back teeth of the mudslinging statements etc. They've all debated the issues intelligently and at great length so it's not like they don't understand the issues and are just lashing out; I think that people are just heartily sick of going round the same wheel again and again.

As to the specific points:

1) The letter from Mike Wilks quoted on the site was actually the third submission of that offer: prior to that it had been submitted verbally and then in writing to SSW. The version sent to Trevor Watkins after SSW wrote to ask that all further communication be conducted through him was drafted by some quite expensive lawyers, who I tend to assume know what they're doing.

2) The fans' consortium is not a fans' takeover, and we've never claimed it is. It is a consortium made up of individual wealthy investors with the active support and input of fans, which aims to establish a new regime at the club based on (among other things) transparency and the active input of fans, from the boardroom down. Hence the pledge for a supporter director, shares being allocated for fans to purchase etc. The point is also covered in more depth in the Q&A we put out some time ago: http://www.truststfc.co.uk/fc_manifesto.php. FWIW, the name was adopted before Bill Power's involvement at the initial meeting at the railway museum in September where we were mandated to undertake seeking investment with a view to achieving a majority shareholding in the club (minutes at http://www.truststfc.co.uk/meeting_27_09_2006.php). What we have now exactly achieves that brief.

But tbh that's just semantics isn't it? The bottom line is that we've been trying to get the board to negotiate properly, rather than mudslinging or obstructionist tactics since before Christmas - it would appear they'd rather continue with the latter. Which is why I think so many people reacted with such understandable anger. Calling them sheep for doing so is a bit harsh, IMHO.

[herthab]

Apologies for the 'sheep' heading. In my defense it was early and I'd just trawled through all the posts relating to the statement, on this forum and thisis.

I'm not trying to stir things up, I just feel that there's an element of 'The Emperors Clothes' to this whole take over issue.

[sonic youth]

I'm probably guilty of being a bit blinkered myself but let's be honest - what have the club done recently to make me think they're genuine?

I'm only sceptical because I feel that I cannot trust a word they say whereas I've found the Trust/Consortium to be open, informative and easy to communicate with.

Anybody who has known me for a little while will know that 18-24 months ago I was quite anti-Trust, I saw no reason or use for the organisation and felt they were shit-stirring wannabe politicians and genuinely felt that despite their obvious faults, those running the club were good people with our best interests at heart.

It seems I was wrong.

[mattboyslim]

I initially joined the trust at its inception, primarily on the basis of my belief in fan representation on the board.  But like SY said the club have done little to convince me they are professional at anything.  From sacking Linda Birrell, to bringing in consultants, the shambolic club shop, the mediocre website, the hassles buying tickets.  Everything is just rubbish, like Sturrock said when he arrived, the whole place is tired and needs a change, for me that pretty much includes everything aside from the playing side.

[Barry Scott]

It seems I was wrong.

Out of genuine curiosity, what changed your opinion?

Btw, good post herthab.

[ghanimah]

The first letter sent to them by Mike Wilkes (If it was what was displayed) did appear a bit amateurish,

The fact that the letter appears at all on the website, in whatever guise, is in my opinion more a reflection on the amateurish stance of the Board rather than the Trust

[Rich Pullen]

The first letter sent to them by Mike Wilkes (If it was what was displayed) did appear a bit amateurish,

The fact that the letter appears at all on the website, in whatever guise, is in my opinion more a reflection on the amateurish stance of the Board rather than the Trust

Yep I agree with that - and it's this major unprofessionalism that winds me up the most.

[Barry Scott]

1) The letter from Mike Wilks quoted on the site was actually the third submission of that offer: prior to that it had been submitted verbally and then in writing to SSW. The version sent to Trevor Watkins after SSW wrote to ask that all further communication be conducted through him was drafted by some quite expensive lawyers, who I tend to assume know what they're doing.

Sounds about right. Never get a lawyer to write a letter! Get them to proof it or just ensure the letter states "without prejudice" at the top.

I used to work in the legal area of a customer relations department and had to write letters that were admissable in court. I had to respond to lawyers letters on regular occassions. Their language and ability to write professionally seems shit across the board.

They smuggle in a few long words, use them badly and sign the letter in an unbelievably pretentious manner. They know dick about writing and just dress it up and write with punchy overtones and "HEY, I'M A LAWYER" demands.

[Bushey Boy]

Barry I often get solicitor letters telling me they are going to take me to court with no evidence and no fact finding.  I often type a letter, get my solicitor to proof read it and then send it back.  You hardly ever get a response (touch wood)

[Barry Scott]

Barry I often get solicitor letters telling me they are going to take me to court with no evidence and no fact finding.  I often type a letter, get my solicitor to proof read it and then send it back.  You hardly ever get a response (touch wood)

No exactly, the majority only know the law in a generic sense. They spend time on scare tactics and long words, and call your bluff.

When you write back and state they're wrong i think it puts their nose out of joint so they get the hump and start to sulk.

[Simon Pieman]

It's not that the trust are the gospel truth...but at least they don't force feed me their opinions.

If you were at the open meeting you might be as angry with Mike Bowden as I am.

[herthab]

It's not that the trust are the gospel truth...but at least they don't force feed me their opinions.

If you were at the open meeting you might be as angry with Mike Bowden as I am.

I couldn't make the meeting due to work commitments, but I have read the minutes and all the feedback on the forums.

I am all for the consortium takeover (As anyone who saw my 'orangeness' at Macclesfield will testify to) I'm just getting a bit fed up with the the entrenched position of some.

Both sides, IMHO, have made mistakes.

Would the consortium in hindsight, have acted in the same way?

People complain that the club weren't transparent enough, then when they issue statements they're criticised.

With all the bullshit that the board have come up with in the past, I'm not surprised a lot of people just assume it's all crap, but that's a bit of a blinkered attitude.

And how have the board 'force fed' you their opinions si pi?

[flammableBen]

It's not that the trust are the gospel truth...but at least they don't force feed me their opinions.

If you were at the open meeting you might be as angry with Mike Bowden as I am.

I couldn't make the meeting due to work commitments, but I have read the minutes and all the feedback on the forums.

I am all for the consortium takeover (As anyone who saw my 'orangeness' at Macclesfield will testify to) I'm just getting a bit fed up with the the entrenched position of some.

Both sides, IMHO, have made mistakes.

Would the consortium in hindsight, have acted in the same way?

People complain that the club weren't transparent enough, then when they issue statements they're criticised.

With all the bullshit that the board have come up with in the past, I'm not surprised a lot of people just assume it's all crap, but that's a bit of a blinkered attitude.

And how have the board 'force fed' you their opinions si pi?[b/]

By waving a spoon around and making airplane noises. It's piss easy to force feed si pi stuff.

[herthab]