If non-members want to influence this vote, now is a good time to pay your fiver and have your say.
I cannot believe the outcome will be option 1 so it will either be meet and tell them to go, or not meet at all. I hope that if option 2 IS chosen by the members, that the Trust do not let themselves get drawn into anything further.
I have no interest in seeing ongoing engagement with this regime. No matter what assurances are given or plans mooted, the eccentricity of RD means it's not worth a jot and could be changed on a whim.
But you well know the trust board was split on whether to meet KM and RM and so used the old trust fall back of "let's have a survey so we don't have to make a difficult decision".
Nothing to do with seeking views of members or wider fan base.
That's too harsh.
This forum is split. No reason to think the Trust Board would be any different. Given that I applaud the decision to refer to the membership.
Can you imagine the fuss on here if the Trust had made a decision without consultation.
Ok interesting, I thought that because it asked if I was a member then some details to identify myself, I assumed it was members only. Thanks for the clarification.
I just honestly don't see what going will achieve. KM and RM will regurgitate the same rubbish they've said in the past, whilst being defensive, no doubt hiding behind others, and not taking on board anything the trust says.
I don't care about taking the moral high ground by attending the meeting as you might as just go an speak to a brick wall for the good it will do.
But you well know the trust board was split on whether to meet KM and RM and so used the old trust fall back of "let's have a survey so we don't have to make a difficult decision".
Nothing to do with seeking views of members or wider fan base.
That's too harsh.
This forum is split. No reason to think the Trust Board would be any different. Given that I applaud the decision to refer to the membership.
Can you imagine the fuss on here if the Trust had made a decision without consultation.
Which is exactly where it was going until it kicked off behind the scenes and why it kicked off.
Absolute own goal of the trust meet them. Clear divide and concer in play here, they have mucked you around numerous times and yet you're still willing to hear there shit. Don't don't it.
As I understand it, this is NOT a vote but rather a request for feedback.
Unless there is a very clear consensus of opinion, the Trust Board will still have to make a decision. I find it hard to imagine that many people would have gone for the "full dialogue" option and I suspect there will be quite a split between the "go tell them to sod off" and "don't go" views.
Personally I didn't want give them the "We want to meet the fans, but they said no" ammunition but after all the BS opted for the "no" option. But on the assumption they wanted to do it and the Trust voted to do so, why not elect a new trust board of *Airman, Steve Clarke, Reg, Henry & The Gentleman that was at the first recorded meeting (beard ) That would put the ball in their court.
Let's not get all bent out of shape on this everyone. We all want the same thing after all.
We aren't going to get 10,000 people to agree on every detail as season tickets being purchased has shown, that doesn't mean people are pro regime, I think you'd struggle to fill the directors box with people who are pro regime unless you give all the seats to staff and even then I'm not sure you would.
Each and every game for a while now we as fans (remember that's what we all are) have sent a message to them, whether that's the funeral march, chanting during or after the game, beach balls and so on. The message recently being sell up, get out there is simply now no way back.
So what if as a trust we meet them face to face, look them in the eye and articulate that message across a table rather than a pitch, is it really any different. It's just a another way to apply the message. I'm sure even they aren't stupid enough to think we'll fall for any of their lies or rhetoric, if they do then they are in for a shock. And in case it's not clear above this started with the trust asking RD to meet, it hasn't been driven by the club. You can see that from the website.
The comments re working with RD are laughable, I think everyone worked out long ago you can't 'work with him', just ask SCP, same applies to KM. I'm not including RM in that as I believe he has zero influence on RD or anyone else.
Re RM, I have no association with him so have no qualms in articulating to him that he is now being viewed by many supporters in a similar light as RD & KM and when we say 'get out of our club' that includes you sunshine. Whether that happens upon a sale of course only time will tell.
This thread shows the difference of opinion, however there has been next to NO comment on here in anyway shape or form that indicates anyone is pro regime, none of us are, so as I started this post, we all want the same thing so let's concentrate our efforts and passion on that.
As I understand it, this is NOT a vote but rather a request for feedback.
Unless there is a very clear consensus of opinion, the Trust Board will still have to make a decision. I find it hard to imagine that many people would have gone for the "full dialogue" option and I suspect there will be quite a split between the "go tell them to sod off" and "don't go" views.
That's fair enough.
Got a feeling this could turn into a similar thing like the Valley Gold money "debate".
I get the whole "mandate" thing but the world has changed. Maybe this mandate needs to be revisited and reworked.
The trust should only meet on the following conditions: 1. The meeting is with Duchatelet and Duchatelet only. Mare and Murray can't be trusted and no other representatives of the club should be there to be used as human shields. 2. The meeting must take place on the pitch at The Valley immediately following the Burnley match. It must be miked up so that every fan can hear what's said through the PA system. 3. The full proceedings must be videoed and made freely available over the internet.
I have just received the e mail again! How can the trust go to a meeting to represent us if they don't seem to know what they are doing by sending the same e mail out twice
A meeting would achieve nothing. Just look at the last meeting, what good came from that?
Let's focus on pushing this ownership out, reconciliation is NOT going to resolve the mess THEY have created. Infact I'm scratching my head here as to how anyone would think we can progress with this ownership after everything that's gone on this season? Madness.
Got a feeling this meeting is RM idea, he knows it would split the protest organizers, he is no doubt printing this thread and will show KM tomorrow and say I told you they are not united, because at the end of the day there are some big egos out there.
I have just received the e mail again! How can the trust go to a meeting to represent us if they don't seem to know what they are doing by sending the same e mail out twice
I have just received the e mail again! How can the trust go to a meeting to represent us if they don't seem to know what they are doing by sending the same e mail out twice
The e mail was sent out again on purpose in order to maximise participation.
A meeting is not pointless. I want to hear what they have to say. If it's more bullshit then that's fine. We can tell them it bulshit and tell the fan base and media it's bullshit. We win.
If we don't meet they just get to say to the press (and they will) that they tried to build a constructive dialogue but the fans were obstructive and unreasonable. They win.
A meeting is not pointless. I want to hear what they have to say. If it's more bullshit then that's fine. We can tell them it bulshit and tell the fan base and media it's bullshit. We win.
If we don't meet they just get to say to the press (and they will) that they tried to build a constructive dialogue but the fans were obstructive and unreasonable. They win.
I don't want hear what they have to say because the are compulsive liars and nothing they say can be trusted.
I would like the Trust to meet them and spell it out that nothing short of selling the club is acceptable.
The Trust must understand they are never going to meet the owner, Richard Murray and Katrien Meire is the only option available. The Trust should meet them and discuss the dire situation we are in. I agree that to refuse the offer of the meeting will give the club every opportunity to criticise the Trust. Prior to the meeting we should submit a list of questions that we want answered.
Comments
I cannot believe the outcome will be option 1 so it will either be meet and tell them to go, or not meet at all. I hope that if option 2 IS chosen by the members, that the Trust do not let themselves get drawn into anything further.
I have no interest in seeing ongoing engagement with this regime. No matter what assurances are given or plans mooted, the eccentricity of RD means it's not worth a jot and could be changed on a whim.
Their exit is the only solution.
This forum is split. No reason to think the Trust Board would be any different. Given that I applaud the decision to refer to the membership.
Can you imagine the fuss on here if the Trust had made a decision without consultation.
I don't care about taking the moral high ground by attending the meeting as you might as just go an speak to a brick wall for the good it will do.
"They appear to see it as an opportunity to repeat the same superficial and flawed analysis, more loudly, more slowly and more clearly".
While there is nothing to gain from listening to them, there may be something to gain telling them them.
Unless there is a very clear consensus of opinion, the Trust Board will still have to make a decision. I find it hard to imagine that many people would have gone for the "full dialogue" option and I suspect there will be quite a split between the "go tell them to sod off" and "don't go" views.
But on the assumption they wanted to do it and the Trust voted to do so, why not elect a new trust board of *Airman, Steve Clarke, Reg, Henry & The Gentleman that was at the first recorded meeting (beard
We aren't going to get 10,000 people to agree on every detail as season tickets being purchased has shown, that doesn't mean people are pro regime, I think you'd struggle to fill the directors box with people who are pro regime unless you give all the seats to staff and even then I'm not sure you would.
Each and every game for a while now we as fans (remember that's what we all are) have sent a message to them, whether that's the funeral march, chanting during or after the game, beach balls and so on. The message recently being sell up, get out there is simply now no way back.
So what if as a trust we meet them face to face, look them in the eye and articulate that message across a table rather than a pitch, is it really any different. It's just a another way to apply the message. I'm sure even they aren't stupid enough to think we'll fall for any of their lies or rhetoric, if they do then they are in for a shock. And in case it's not clear above this started with the trust asking RD to meet, it hasn't been driven by the club. You can see that from the website.
The comments re working with RD are laughable, I think everyone worked out long ago you can't 'work with him', just ask SCP, same applies to KM. I'm not including RM in that as I believe he has zero influence on RD or anyone else.
Re RM, I have no association with him so have no qualms in articulating to him that he is now being viewed by many supporters in a similar light as RD & KM and when we say 'get out of our club' that includes you sunshine. Whether that happens upon a sale of course only time will tell.
This thread shows the difference of opinion, however there has been next to NO comment on here in anyway shape or form that indicates anyone is pro regime, none of us are, so as I started this post, we all want the same thing so let's concentrate our efforts and passion on that.
Got a feeling this could turn into a similar thing like the Valley Gold money "debate".
I get the whole "mandate" thing but the world has changed. Maybe this mandate needs to be revisited and reworked.
Actually, I think that there should have been the option of not meeting, but issuing a statement why and that the regime should go.
1. The meeting is with Duchatelet and Duchatelet only. Mare and Murray can't be trusted and no other representatives of the club should be there to be used as human shields.
2. The meeting must take place on the pitch at The Valley immediately following the Burnley match. It must be miked up so that every fan can hear what's said through the PA system.
3. The full proceedings must be videoed and made freely available over the internet.
Just look at the last meeting, what good came from that?
Let's focus on pushing this ownership out, reconciliation is NOT going to resolve the mess THEY have created. Infact I'm scratching my head here as to how anyone would think we can progress with this ownership after everything that's gone on this season? Madness.
The e mail was sent out again on purpose in order to maximise participation.
If we don't meet they just get to say to the press (and they will) that they tried to build a constructive dialogue but the fans were obstructive and unreasonable. They win.
I would like the Trust to meet them and spell it out that nothing short of selling the club is acceptable.