I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.
The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.
Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.
I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..
Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?
Great post mate and really pleasing response from Grange. Absolutely what needs to happen.
