Quote:
Originally Posted by GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo
To me it is as they go hand in hand, that's why Bolton in particular almost went bust, why Oyston left Blackpool and a lesser extent why Bury went under, fans stayed away in protest there too.
We've players on 2 year contracts, if crowds drop off will we afford them and crucially will players want to be moved on? The whole Bobby Grant scenario with his contract sounds a right mess, he shouldn't decide if he stays or goes.
How long can we sustain losses, more with people cancelling memberships, lapsed ones not being chased up.
It's going to be a spectacular collapse, you only have to look at what happened at Telford under fan ownership
|
It does all go hand in hand. An overview indicates that all is not well. This business of (some) other things are going well is irrelevant.
I refuse to single out individuals. Only the Trust as whole can resolve this, The objective is not to slate people but get it right.
The grip the trust has means only they can to make things happen.
It would defuse things considerably if there were any indications of truly addressing the issues and concerns being raised, including moving way from the present inward looking narrow minded approach to a more open approach with external focus as well.
I hope we do not screw up but do not believe this spin about "sustainability".
Sustainability or continuity is not the sole prerogative of either fans owned or privately owned clubs.