Quote ="bren2k"Apologies - I didn't make myself clear; I'm 100% supportive of the Trust and the proud owner of share number 66 - I think the approach that's been taken in terms of inviting the existing groups to the table is a good one, and I hope it works.
My post was aimed at RichieWarlord and the others who seem exasperated that the pre-existing supporters groups aren't immediately coming into the fold; the point I was trying to make is that from their perspective, the ST is the new kid on the block and as such, they're entitled to take some time before they make a decision about affiliating, or not.'"
I don't see the issue with any group saying they support the general ideals as is now, but with them wanting to know more longer term at an open AGM before committing fully and have specific hopes for influencing them. There has been about four months since the initial ST meeting to state their place, either they support the ST ideals or they could state publically what they stand for or where they are. I apologise if I have missed an announcement. I don't know who they are, what different groups stand for etc.. If its former regime related, well they aren't here - it should be club related.
The problem I have is that duplication is unnecessary. Duplication is unnecessary, see it really is!
Idealistically, and I know life is different, I would hope that the ST would be able to support/represent the different groups, the Squadbuilder group, the Disabled Supporters group, the Transport to away games group, and any other groups that are 'single issue'. It would be a good way of keeping a uniform approach to publicising each of the groups through an umbrella organisation (ST) that would be able to put any issues to the Club through the ST. And also each group would be able to publicise its aims and hopes so it reaches a wider audience than currently does. They may actually be able to increase their effectiveness by doing so.
