. This theory has only been cemented by those who support the Trust. who have stated that there is no real alternative to a 51% or a fan owned model. If you disagree with this, you are automatically perceived as anti Trust or pro KT.
I can only repeat what I have said right from the start. The club, like it or not, does not see the Trust as representative of the support.
.
In summary. The Trust needs to get back in touch with the support. Yes you're clever. Yes you care. But this is not getting across to the support. Your failure to galvanise the support behind your ideas, has left you looking like just another interested party in the stadium, enabling land, and club. You need the support. You ARE a supporters Trust. As for the club. If KT and DB do not start to show significant change at NTFC, they will topple. I just feel that we are on the cusp of a tide of resentment. A few more bad results, and a plummet in league position will bring with it consequences. We are undoubtedly at a cross roads. The coming months will test the intentions and resolve of all involved.
/quote]
I would really like to see some evidence to support your first statement, I know you will struggle to provide i,t because the statement is untrue, Please show me where it has been said "that there is no real alternative to a 51% or a fan owned model" I was on the Trust board for over 10 years and that was never stated. We could have had a fan owned club in 2015 but the Trust/Local Consortium stood aside for KT/DB , because that was thought to be better for NTFC.
I agree 100% that the fans need to get together but you really don't help by posting things, attributed to the Trust, that are incorrect. The Trust are the only organisation that the fans at NTFC have and, as posted by a couple of people on here, if you are a member and are not happy with how it's run, let them know, don't just post negative stuff here. Nigel, you say the Trust needs to galvanise the fans, that is 100% true, but most of your posts seemed to be aimed at splitting the support, which has the opposite effect, so why do you do that ?
You seem to permanently concentrate on singular aspects of what I write, rather than making any attempt to understand the point I'm making. I can evidence that it is a model that the Trust agree with, because you held a publicly attended meeting to push it. My experience is drawn from that and some of those who attended that meeting, plus other things said to me at Trust meetings subsequent to that. I specifically said those that "support the Trust", I did not mention the board members. A Trust board member also inferred that a certain local millionaire might be interested in buying the club, as part of a fan/investor model. The same person was referred to at the public meeting by a Trust board member, when addressing the concerns of a club employee.
I have repeatedly agreed with a number of things that the Trust have done, and continue to do so. I have praised them for what they have done on every level except one. Namely fan ownership, or a fan run club. I don't like it as an idea. That clearly appeals to your sensitivities. So what do you do, you read through all the stuff I say about the club, that is in disagreement with their stance, and you ignore it. Yet I disagree with one aspect of the Trust, and you latch onto it and label me as anti Trust.
I genuinely believe if you put your prejudices about me aside, you would see that I am frustrated, like most, with both sides. I believe that both are ignoring the support. My argument goes no further than the Trust are not getting the support on side. I'm happy to listen to any rational argument that you have, that shows an increase in membership, engagement, in fact anything that you can present that endorses your opinion that the current policies are supported. Show me it, that's the best way to prove your point. If you can, I will accept that I am being unfair in what I say and apologise. If you can't, then perhaps you owe me an apology.