he's obviously too scared to post his drivel on here, so I took the opportunity for him:
Ok ... so I am sure that a large group of people will now hurl their usual abuse ... because they like to ... but for those who actually like to explore all sides of an issue ......
It is now exceptionally well documented that the Board have not conducted themselves well in the eyes of the fans so I do not feel the need to revisit all of that ... just go back over the archives of any of the forums and you will find plenty of comment/evidence of that as well as articles in the media. For what it is worth, I 100% agree with others who condemn the Board for any lies that have been told, particularly to shareholders.
However ..... I would like to take a closer look at the minutes of the last Trust fans meeting held on 13th January at the Moonrakers (
http://www.truststfc.co.uk/meeting_13_01_2007.php ).
If minutes are supposed to be a "true and accurate" record of a meeting ... then why is it that the questions asked from the floor (and their answers) are not recorded?
Three questions (of several asked) that were not recorded included: -
Given the much stated comments from Mike Wilks about how when he met with Sir Seton Wills last November he appeared 'very interested', and then afterwards seemed to change his mind, could you (MW) tell us whether Sir Seton knew at the time you met him that the proposed consortium had Bill Power as its main backer?
The answer was ... no he did not know when they met.
The supplementary question was then asked as to whether that could have had a subsequent bearing on his later "cooling" towards the proposal.
Also asked was a question as to whether any of the un-named proposed investors had ever been involved with another football club. The reply was that the current un-named proposed investors included some who are "London City based" and also someone who has been involved at another football club but is no longer.
Later on Mike Bowden made it very clear what was required in any letter from the consortium for progress to be made (bear in mind that as at the present time it is completely up to the Board to decide both whether to sell and who to - so they can call the tune) ... as a result Mike wilks was asked whether he would be complying with that request and submitting a letter with the content requested. Eventually he indicated that he would.
It would appear from the past few days activity that what has actually happened is that Mike Wilks has instead chosen to make yet another public statement (breaking another encouraging period of silence) to which, as expected, the club have responded.
It seems from the Club's statement, that although that letter was written after the Trust fans meeting, that the letter does not contain the information that Mike Wilks had said would be provided, nor it would appear does it even acknowledge the existence of Mike Wilks.
Perhaps the way forward is indeed as others have suggested, for discussions to take place between Bill Power/Phil Emmel, away from those with a very self-evident "media appetite". Perhaps also the Trust should take the opportunity to report what happens at their own meetings as well as at others they attend.
It seems that all public statements from both sides need to be seen as "spin" and treated with the appropriate value.
ah bless.
