And as I have said previously, your idea is definitely a good one, and a good model of how [iclubs[/i should be run. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen and the fans have no alternative but to step up and use their influence as a body of fans (as opposed to one or two individuals) to show those running clubs into the ground that it is simply not acceptable. I'm sure the vast majority of supporters would choose a mid-table side over a non-existent one every day of the week. I know I certainly would.

Sounds a bit 'Munich Beer Hall Putsch' to me.

Your trust decides it doesnt like the way the club is run.

So as an unelected body you rise up as one and try and 'use your influence' to get the club (owned by someone else) to do as YOU want.



Thanks for confirming my fears on Supporters trusts.

Totally agree

The board of a supporters trust is elected by its members on an annual basis and every member has the opportunity to stand for the board should they wish and every supporter and in fact every stakeholder in the club has the opportunity to join the trust seeing as one of the main traits is inclusiveness.

You seem to be suggesting Barry, that supporters should just sit back and watch as their club is run into the ground by someone who only wants to make money and isn't prepared to invest in the infrastructure of the club?

Had the supporters of Manchester United sat back and done nothing, I'm sure the Glazer family could quite happily have carried on loading the club with debt as they have been since taking over. Fortunately, the supporters trust did take action, all 150,000 of their members (I'm sure you've seen the Green & Gold campaign in the news which was organised and coordinated by their supporters trust) and whilst they may never be able to raise the money needed to buy the club from the Glazer family, I'd suggest it would be very difficult for them to continue behaving in the manner they have been doing.

It also seems to be worth clarifying (again) that a supporters trust is not always about 'getting the club'. As I've stated previously, the aim of the trust will very much depend on the situation at the club. If the club is being run into the ground then yes there is a case for a trust taking over. However, there are a number of clubs e.g. Bradford and Warrington to name just a couple, that are being run well so the trust uses its influence in other proactive ways.

Would you say Warrington and Bradford are not influencing the future of their clubs by helping to attract and retain young talent to the club? They are not there to decide which players are signed or to pick the team - the club hires people with expertise in that area to do that. They are there to work with the club to develop the future and try (as far as possible) to ensure that the future of the club is secure.

Fortunatley despite London barmen being reasonably well paid it is highley inlikely that you will ever be the person actually making any decisions at a club , as for your understanding of supporters trusts and how they can actually keep clubs alive that nobody else wants to , once again , fortunatley you are unlikely ever to be involved in one , by the way , the guiness needs changing and the ash trays in the beer garden need emptying

lmao - class response !!!!