If this meeting was a genuine attempt to bring all the groups of people who support Vics together, and at the end there was a feeling that it had been positive, then it just reinforces my belief that the Trust is a threat to McNally. He obviously needs to sabotage any such 'partnership' before it becomes too established. I also find myself becoming more and more convinced that McNally represents whoever is the real power in all this and Jim is just the front man and is becoming more and more sidelined?

As for the negative comments on this forum - it's known as free speech and this particular free speech reflects the way a company has looked after its customers. Information and knowledge in the supporters domain is a major threat to single owners of football clubs as it reduces their power and control. Much as I respect Derek for some of what he has done over the years i'm afraid he's not the best at including fans in a meaningful sense and some of what is happening now is partly his fault.

Funny isn't it that when something threatens the status quo one of the first casualties is free speech?

NotJim wrote:
I think that you are absolutely right. Mr McNally has his own hidden agenda. There is no way that the Supporters Trust should have anything to do with Mr McNally or whoever he might be representing, if its not Jim Rushe.

I am reliably told that at the "so called" meeting" JR said once again that "HE DID NOT WANT INVOLVEMENT WITH THE TRUST", how many more times are we going to listen to "WHAT HE WANTS ?", now is the time to "cut the rope" and get on with our own business, McSilly and co are just there to try and split support for the breakaway group and clearly is not of this world.

Genuine question, did Jim mention a reason why he has had a change of heart about speaking/working with the Trust?

Does he feel they now represent enough of the fan base (150 odd against recent attendances of little over 200) or is it a stalling plan in the hope that by not having an alternative otion to the club, the attendances and then the income from next seasons 'home' games will be more?

I am glad all parties have sat down at the table, pleased to hear the outcome was perceived to be positive and that another meeting is pencilled in.

But why did this take so long to do, surely this was something that should have happened much earlier on.

how many people using this forum who were not invited to attend the meeting new about it all along and never mentioned it while using the forum

big john wrote:
How many people who were at the meeting have gone against what was agreed by the meeting about communication of what happened?