Just wondering, having read the article, whether we - LUST were consulted by Dave Boyle (SD) about our views before him giving his comments? Though it does appear that his comments are more general, rather than specific to LUFC.

Would just like to know if there was any communication on this subject, cheers.

I don't know the answer to your question but I can confirm that there was no communication between Dave Boyle and myself (not that I would have expected any approach from Dave to myself since the change in the board structure).

I can also confirm that David Conn did approach me about these stories (it is a wider issue that just Leeds) and was certainly asking for contribution and comment but I explained that I am no longer in a position to make any comment as a member of the Trust Board. David was referred to Lee and he approached Lee directly for comment on behalf of the Trust.

David Conns approach to myself was immediately reported upwards to Gary Cooper together with confirmation of what I had explained to David about my current position and the need for him to approach Lee.

I've spoken to Boyles no.2 after emailing him on the day in question-for some considerable time I might add.Their reported comments were generalised and not specific and I've no reason to suspect they've had contact with anyone-past or present board members.

What they did say was that they are pursuing the identity of all clubs' owners as a matter of principle,and that would include us-no matter what the short term consequences of doing so.I found that quite appalling as was their decision to respond at all to the article,but thats just my opinion.I got a better understanding however of SD's intentions, who seem to be in full support of MUST and Newcastle's where they think 'positive action' would bring higher Trust membership.

Newcastle's is completely at odds with Ashley and run roadshows to get their message over,and brought substantially increased members and support.
MUSTs target David Gill and try to make his life a misery,and the 'yellow and gold' protest has been succesful in terms of getting them noticed.

Not sure such a policy would work at ER given the current circumstances,although I was offended by SD's suggestion that this was 'appeasment'.Theres a middle ground on this, but it seems that both SD and the attitude of our own chairman may cause problems at a later date-if we allow it to manifest as such.Cant see the objective of a seat on the board (an SD requirement), being met in any way shape or form by the current LU owners

Shouldnt this issue be one of the first policy items that the Board should canvass its members upon in order to get a lead in direction that they prefer.

A simple poll of "do the members of Lust feel that supporters of LUFC should be made aware of who the beneficial ownwers of the club are?" would suffice.

We could canvass the members if thats the wish of the board, but what would be the point of that? Its very unlikely this would produce the desired effect and IMO would only serve to scupper the progress we've already made with the club.
If however we had say thousands of members including a high percentage of ST holders,then fair enough as that voice would have to be heard-but we've some way to go before we achieve that.
SD did state that it was important to have a large membership if that voice was to be representative,and most certainly to be effective.

I think the phrase 'walk before you can run' springs to mind,and besides which we've got important initiatives to work on which will-hopefully-produce the numbers and interest we require

theseagullbus wrote:We could canvass the members if thats the wish of the board, but what would be the point of that? Its very unlikely this would produce the desired effect and IMO would only serve to scupper the progress we've already made with the club.
If however we had say thousands of members including a high percentage of ST holders,then fair enough as that voice would have to be heard-but we've some way to go before we achieve that.
SD did state that it was important to have a large membership if that voice was to be representative,and most certainly to be effective.

I think the phrase 'walk before you can run' springs to mind,and besides which we've got important initiatives to work on which will-hopefully-produce the numbers and interest we require

I know that you are not personally comfortable with any statement on this issue based on a members poll as the possibility exists for the members to vote 'Qui', but we have to be seen to be a bit forward thinking here:

Consider this:
Is it an important subject that the members would expect an independent supporters organisation to have an opinion on?

If the answer is yes then IMHO we should proceed accordingly.

I know that we are going to have issues that will possibly make it 'unconfortable' with the club but what the hell - are we just going to roll over and play dead every time something comes up that the club dont agree with us. If we are then I am in the wrong organisation.

By the fans and for the fans. If they don't like it then Harvey and Bates must surely understand democracy...............Well perhaps not!!

I think in due time then yes ask the members - but I think we would be rushing into it atm. Personally I would rather we successfully rebranded and got our own house in order before we start with any campaigns etc. Once that has been completed I am sure that there will be the vote to ask the members what are the three main important aspects that they want the trust to look at and take it from there.

it isnt a campaign of any sort. The new Board made a pledge that members would be asked their opinion on important items assocaited with LUFC. IMHO this is an important item. There is no need for a follow up campaign as such but having a position is more important than not having a position. 'Don't Know' is a cop out.

The etc was implying other things as well as campaigns. I wasn't stating this was a campaign as such - it was the word that popped into my head at the time. Apologies, I should have worded it better.

I am sure members will be canvassed in the near future and hopefully we will have a better idea of that after the board meeting tomorrow.

Sorry it has taken me a few days to comment on this.

David Conn asked us (The Trust) for our viewpoint on the current situation. I explained that the new board has taken a considered approach to everything we say and do and we would always canvass the opinion of our members before making any statement. I explained that at this moment in time I was unable to provide him with a definitive or official stance. I did however explain that we as put the right systems in place to canvass opinion we will be happy to comment officially on anything related to the trust.

Like I said at the AGM a few weeks ago, everyone (press) will be told the same thing at the moment: Bare with us until we get moving on a few things and then we will be happy to comment and provide information to anyone, after canvassing the opinion of our members.

I have also informed other journalists (not just the Guardian) of the other actions we as a trust are taking such as SMILE and The Hall of Fame, as i am conscious of the trust only being associated with negative press. I want to try and get the message across that we are more then just a 'quote when things go wrong' and that we are actively trying to achieve things on behalf of the fans and the community.

Cheers Lee for the update