The Canton end debate

Like so many of us I miss the the special atmosphere of Ninian Park and want to see it replicated at the Cardiff City Stadium.
What made NP so special was when ALL of the ground joined in the singing,it may of started in the Grange end or Bob bank or even blocks A and B of the Grandstand but this would then be the chant of the WHOLE ground .When away teams used to talk about the hostile atmosphere at NP it was about the ground it's self not just the grange end etc,even the family stand had a great atmosphere .

As much as I want to see a return to these great days, as much as I admire the idea of ways of making it better I.e.getting all the singers together in the Canton end, there is a danger this could actually make the atmosphere worse as three sides of the ground could remain quiet and would encourage even more of the prawn sandwich type brigade into these areas,who can't even make an effort and clap to men of Harlech.

One of the major problems in my view, is the stadium is to 'nice'.

Five minutes from the start of the game many seats will be empty as these fans will be enjoying a beer or some food or watching an early kick off game on the TV s, at NP the atmosphere was already there before the game started as the facilities were crap (having a piss in a portaloo).


Ten mins before half time there is a mass exit to do the same again, which has a massive effect on the atmosphere in the ground,how many watch the game on the tv s while having a pint ?.Not that there is anything wrong in that, it is now part of the match day experience .

We have gone from average gates of 13,000 to 23,000 among them will be many who will be to young to know what a proper atmosphere is like ,we are also attracting more families which has got to be a good thing, but again will effect the atmosphere,again moving on how many times did we see running battles in Slopper Road with young children scared to death by it all,but again that is what NP was all about sometimes, the good and the bad.

I wish I had to the answer ,at the end of the day the people that made the Bob bank special are in the NInian ,the Grange end are in the Canton stand, blocks A and B are next to the away end as always, before we complain about stewards ruining the atmosphere by making us sit down, we should look at ourselves and what we have got now, a team on the brink of the Premiership,in a modern stadium, with crowds around 25,000 can we have the best of both worlds ? .I really hope so .

At the moment Mike there is not much of an Atmosphere from any parts of the ground.


By the way Mike this below has nothing to do with your post



" IF THERE ARE 2,000 EMPTY/UNSOLD SEATS "
With also an area of 400 empty seats together in The Canton Stand and Fans from the Ninian Stand/Grandstand/Family stand and Mainly from This Forum want to move over in to them to Create an ATMOSPHERE and THE CLUB HAVE ALREADY BACKED IT.

WHY HAVE CERTAIN PEOPLE GONE RUNNING TO OUR CLUB WORRIED/CONCERNED and DEMANDED A MEETING. ?

SPEAK OUT ON HERE, let everyone know who you are

I currently sit in the canton, and given the atmosphere in the ground (2/3 games being an exception) its not been great. I would welcome a mass exodus from the ninian over to the canton. I can't remember who wrote it, however they pointed out the atmosphere at dirty leeds is generated from their one end - they have a good point, similalry anfield. The club should let it happen. Given the allocation for away fans would increase / move along the ninian if we acheive our ultimate goal, promoion, I think its the right way to improve the atmosphere. Must say though it does sadden me to think we have to we have come to this. Never thought cardiff would have to introduce wales type encouragement to build an atmosphere. I expect it at clubs where i consider the atmosphere to be sterile - Coventry etc but not city.

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

Personally I think that if you get a sizable group of like minded souls together in the Canton, then when they start a song lr a chant off, the other areas of the ground will soon pick up on it and join in.

I can only see it making things better not worse, but if we don't try, we'll never know.

Personally I think that if you get a sizable group of like minded souls together in the Canton, then when they start a song lr a chant off, the other areas of the ground will soon pick up on it and join in.

I can only see it making things better not worse, but if we don't try, we'll never know.

I agree Gwyn,
But Why are these other so called supporters trying to get involved and showing concern/worry, I would like them to tell us there concerns

Personally I think that if you get a sizable group of like minded souls together in the Canton, then when they start a song lr a chant off, the other areas of the ground will soon pick up on it and join in.

I can only see it making things better not worse, but if we don't try, we'll never know.

You're not just a reem of amazing jokes, you're completely spot on too. Your points are why I'm still going through with it.

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

As TLG has stated though. IF, and it is an IF, a trust member has asked for some clarification on certain matters then the trust are dutybound to act on behalf of their members. I see little wrong in this and would expect Gethin Jenkins to state why the action has been taken (or suggested that it will be). I cannot see it changing anything.
Peoples concerns were that they would be moved from their seats to accommodate the move. Once this has been clarified as not being the case I see little cause for objection, as the move seems to make sense.

In fairness, if a member of this board posted that he wanted something to be asked about would you not do the same Annis?

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

As TLG has stated though. IF, and it is an IF, a trust member has asked for some clarification on certain matters then the trust are dutybound to act on behalf of their members. I see little wrong in this and would expect Gethin Jenkins to state why the action has been taken (or suggested that it will be). I cannot see it changing anything.
Peoples concerns were that they would be moved from their seats to accommodate the move. Once this has been clarified as not being the case I see little cause for objection, as the move seems to make sense.

In fairness, if a member of this board posted that he wanted something to be asked about would you not do the same Annis?

Sorry, I dont see a problem, there are empty seats and they are there to be filled. PLEASE TELL ME YOUR PROBLEM ?

At the moment Mike there is not much of an Atmosphere from any parts of the ground.


By the way Mike this below has nothing to do with your post



" IF THERE ARE 2,000 EMPTY/UNSOLD SEATS "
With also an area of 400 empty seats together in The Canton Stand and Fans from the Ninian Stand/Grandstand/Family stand and Mainly from This Forum want to move over in to them to Create an ATMOSPHERE and THE CLUB HAVE ALREADY BACKED IT.

WHY HAVE CERTAIN PEOPLE GONE RUNNING TO OUR CLUB WORRIED/CONCERNED and DEMANDED A MEETING. ?

SPEAK OUT ON HERE, let everyone know who you are, YOUVE GOT MY TEL NO WHATS THE PROBLEM ?

What makes you think "certain people" have "gone running to the club" and have "demanded a meeting? If someone has told you this , they must have said who it is surely?

You say in your post below that Claude Blue says it is the Trust , but I have read his post in full and he says no just thing - maybe you have just misread it. What his full post says is that there was a post on this board (since deleted) suggesting that it was the Trust.A claim that is simply wrong.

Keith

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

As TLG has stated though. IF, and it is an IF, a trust member has asked for some clarification on certain matters then the trust are dutybound to act on behalf of their members. I see little wrong in this and would expect Gethin Jenkins to state why the action has been taken (or suggested that it will be). I cannot see it changing anything.
Peoples concerns were that they would be moved from their seats to accommodate the move. Once this has been clarified as not being the case I see little cause for objection, as the move seems to make sense.

In fairness, if a member of this board posted that he wanted something to be asked about would you not do the same Annis?

Sorry, I dont see a problem, there are empty seats and they are there to be filled. PLEASE TELL ME YOUR PROBLEM ?

I don't recall saying I had one. All I am saying is IF OTHER PEOPLE have a problem and have approached the trust then the trust will act on their behalf.

I have stated I see little cause for objection to the move, and also stated I think that the Canton Stand as a section for more vocal supporters is, in my opinion, a good idea.

I would of thought ' others ' would of objected more if 400 like minded fans wanted to relocate to the NInian stand next to the away end, that I could understand.

Karlof



I don't recall saying I had one. All I am saying is IF OTHER PEOPLE have a problem and have approached the trust then the trust will act on their behalf.

I have stated I see little cause for objection to the move, and also stated I think that the Canton Stand as a section for more vocal supporters is, in my opinion, a good idea.


Karlof, But they dont ever stick up for any other things regarding fans, WHY NOW ? AND WHY Karlof, you seem to think they are right to ? WHY ?

Karlof



I don't recall saying I had one. All I am saying is IF OTHER PEOPLE have a problem and have approached the trust then the trust will act on their behalf.

I have stated I see little cause for objection to the move, and also stated I think that the Canton Stand as a section for more vocal supporters is, in my opinion, a good idea.


Karlof, But they dont ever stick up for any other things regarding fans, WHY NOW ? AND WHY Karlof, you seem to think they are right to ? WHY ?

Annis

You are perpetuating the idea that the Trust has in some way demanded a meeting with the club to discuss a possible change in where people sit next season.

As I have said above this is simply not true. It is also simply not true that the poster Claude Blue claimed that it was the Trust (if you put his full post up on here that is quite clear - he said someone else had suggested it).

Could you please therefore make this clear so that posters on here are not misinformed and therefore jump to the wrong conclusions based on false information and perhaps clarify who it was that gave you that false information.

Keith

It seems to me you can't do right for doing wrong. I think it's a great idea and at least people are trying to be proactive in trying to do something about the atmosphere. It has my 100% support.

Karlof



I don't recall saying I had one. All I am saying is IF OTHER PEOPLE have a problem and have approached the trust then the trust will act on their behalf.

I have stated I see little cause for objection to the move, and also stated I think that the Canton Stand as a section for more vocal supporters is, in my opinion, a good idea.


Karlof, But they dont ever stick up for any other things regarding fans, WHY NOW ? AND WHY Karlof, you seem to think they are right to ? WHY ?

Annis

You are perpetuating the idea that the Trust has in some way demanded a meeting with the club to discuss a possible change in where people sit next season.

As I have said above this is simply not true. It is also simply not true that the poster Claude Blue claimed that it was the Trust (if you put his full post up on here that is quite clear - he said someone else had suggested it).

Could you please therefore make this clear so that posters on here are not misinformed and therefore jump to the wrong conclusions based on false information and perhaps clarify who it was that gave you that false information.

Keith

Keith,

Please answer the following.
Are THE TRUST GOING TO THE MEETING ?
IF SO WHY ?
AND WHY DID THEY VOICE CONCERNS ?
Whats it got to do with you if we move in to empty seats ?

Karlof



I don't recall saying I had one. All I am saying is IF OTHER PEOPLE have a problem and have approached the trust then the trust will act on their behalf.

I have stated I see little cause for objection to the move, and also stated I think that the Canton Stand as a section for more vocal supporters is, in my opinion, a good idea.


Karlof, But they dont ever stick up for any other things regarding fans, WHY NOW ? AND WHY Karlof, you seem to think they are right to ? WHY ?

Annis,

I am not saying, or suggesting that anybody opposed to the move is right. In fact, as I have posted already on this thread and others, I think the idea is great. My only concern, at first was if people were going to be unable to get their seats as per this/last season.

In fairness both yourself and Gwyn have clearly stated this is not going to be the case so in my eyes, and my opinion, the move is good for all concerned. We have a more centrally located vocal support, empty seats are being filled. I am struggling (not that I want to anyway) to find a negative with the suggestion.

My point is that IF, and I stress IF, somebody somewhere for whatever reason has raised a concern to the trust then it is within the remit of the trust to address that concern to the club. They are there to present a voice for the fans to the club.
I cannot comment on whether they have ignored other requests or pleas over previous issues. It is the same way that if you or I contacted the police to report a crime that never happened. They are duty bound by their own rules and guidelines to investigate.

The club, in the guise of Gethin Jenkins, have already given or are on the verge of giving the green light to the move. I cannot see any logical reason why this would change whatever arguments are put forward by the trust or anybody else.

Annis

You are perpetuating the idea that the Trust has in some way demanded a meeting with the club to discuss a possible change in where people sit next season.

As I have said above this is simply not true. It is also simply not true that the poster Claude Blue claimed that it was the Trust (if you put his full post up on here that is quite clear - he said someone else had suggested it).

Could you please therefore make this clear so that posters on here are not misinformed and therefore jump to the wrong conclusions based on false information and perhaps clarify who it was that gave you that false information.

Keith

Keith if you are clarifying in good faith that the Trust has not asked for a meeting with the club or has never discussed in private that they have concerns about a large number of AAMB forum members relocating from the Ninian Stand to the Canton, then as fair minded fans we accept your word.

However, your concern should now be why the Trust is viewed with such suspicion and not taking an easy option by blaming Annis. The Trusts problems are well documented and go right back to your collective feeble response to the protest march, apologising on behalf of ALL fans to Reading FC, charging away support a £1 each and going missing when the train fans were falsely accused by that Looney woman.

We have heard the excuses for not acting a million times (the ‘difficult’ situation as I personally think of it), but what these excuses collectively add up to is an abject failure of the Trust to nail its colours to the mast and come out on the side of the fans it represents.

That is why it doesn't take much for a story to get out of hand about the Trust even if it is untrue as your credibility is at an all time low. I don't particularly like seeing that but if you are to improve things then what you need to do is a root and branch review of the way you portray yourself to the vast majority of the fan base instead of finding easy cop out excuses.

Annis

You are perpetuating the idea that the Trust has in some way demanded a meeting with the club to discuss a possible change in where people sit next season.

As I have said above this is simply not true. It is also simply not true that the poster Claude Blue claimed that it was the Trust (if you put his full post up on here that is quite clear - he said someone else had suggested it).

Could you please therefore make this clear so that posters on here are not misinformed and therefore jump to the wrong conclusions based on false information and perhaps clarify who it was that gave you that false information.

Keith

Keith if you are clarifying in good faith that the Trust has not asked for a meeting with the club or has never discussed in private that they have concerns about a large number of AAMB forum members relocating from the Ninian Stand to the Canton, then as fair minded fans we accept your word.

However, your concern should now be why the Trust is viewed with such suspicion and not taking an easy option by blaming Annis. The Trusts problems are well documented and go right back to your collective feeble response to the protest march, apologising on behalf of ALL fans to Reading FC, charging away support a £1 each and going missing when the train fans were falsely accused by that Looney woman.

VIEWED WITH SUCH SUSPISION ?...BY WHO ...YOU !!

WHERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO DONT ER...TRUST THE TRUST ?



We have heard the excuses for not acting a million times (the ‘difficult’ situation as I personally think of it), but what these excuses collectively add up to is an abject failure of the Trust to nail its colours to the mast and come out on the side of the fans it represents.

ABJECT FAILURE ?...WHO ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR ??...BECAUSE WHEN I WAS LEAFLETTING FOR THE TRUST I DIDNT GET ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS AT ALL

That is why it doesn't take much for a story to get out of hand about the Trust even if it is untrue as your credibility is at an all time low. I don't particularly like seeing that but if you are to improve things then what you need to do is a root and branch review of the way you portray yourself to the vast majority of the fan base instead of finding easy cop out excuses.

CREDIBILITY AT AN ALL TIME LOW ?.......WITH WHO ?...YOU ?

football ground atmosphere's are synonomus with "ends"....... sides are for the likes of the gypos.

if we all move over to the canton they may extend it thus giving it some individuality and character from which we will gain some pride.

we should all wear balaclavas as well

Karlof



I don't recall saying I had one. All I am saying is IF OTHER PEOPLE have a problem and have approached the trust then the trust will act on their behalf.

I have stated I see little cause for objection to the move, and also stated I think that the Canton Stand as a section for more vocal supporters is, in my opinion, a good idea.


Karlof, But they dont ever stick up for any other things regarding fans, WHY NOW ? AND WHY Karlof, you seem to think they are right to ? WHY ?

Annis

You are perpetuating the idea that the Trust has in some way demanded a meeting with the club to discuss a possible change in where people sit next season.

As I have said above this is simply not true. It is also simply not true that the poster Claude Blue claimed that it was the Trust (if you put his full post up on here that is quite clear - he said someone else had suggested it).

Could you please therefore make this clear so that posters on here are not misinformed and therefore jump to the wrong conclusions based on false information and perhaps clarify who it was that gave you that false information.

Keith

Keith,

Please answer the following.
Are THE TRUST GOING TO THE MEETING ?
IF SO WHY ?
AND WHY DID THEY VOICE CONCERNS ?
Whats it got to do with you if we move in to empty seats ?

I have no idea if the Trust are going to the meeting.
Indeed ,I had no idea that a meeting was even taking place until I saw a reference to it in a post made by Dave Sugarman on Mike`s messageboard.It is certainly not a meeting that has been asked for by the Trust .

It seems , if Dave`s post is correct, that the club are having a regular meeting with the travel group members (Carl is one of the dozen or so people who get invited to these meetings since this forum started organising its own away travel in recent months so he would know).

It seems that someone from the Safety group is also due to be at the stadium at around the same time , so perhaps the club are looking to take the opportunity to discuss seating matters in general with fans while they are there. Vince will be there anyway as a travel organiser , so can wear his CCST rep. hat.Perhaps the club then decided to ask the Trust , as the other elected fans body , to attend as well.

The above may be the reason why the Trust is going to the meeting.

What I can categorically say is that the Trust board have NOT voiced any concerns about a possible move of people from the Ninian Stand to the Canton End.Could I ask you (AGAIN as I have done so in a few threads on the same topic today with no answers) who has given you this misleading information?

You are quite right to say it is nothing to do with me (I presume you meant me personally) if people want to move to empty seats. I have never claimed it is , have I? In fact , my own opinion is that restructuring where fan groups sit as suggested is a good idea.

Keith

OK Keith

Also Tim Hartley never sent an email to Wayne Nash regarding the Canton Stand etc(as I must have read an email wrong )

Then Claudeblue has got it wrong and the TRUST (Trust name was mentioned first on ccmb, as I personally prefer not to talk about you or them)are not going Tuesday night are they ?
They have not expressed their Concern and No correspondence by them has been sent or spoken to over the above issue ?

If that is so, then first correct it on ccmb and as NONE OF THIS HAPPENING THEN ITS ALL GO




THIS Keith is how it all STARTED, But if the TRUST ARE NOT GOING TO THE MEETING and they HAVE NO CONCERNS Claudeblue owes you an Apology for winding us ALL UP.


9:35 am

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

OK Keith

Also Tim Hartley never sent an email to Wayne Nash regarding the Canton Stand etc(as I must have read an email wrong )

Then Claudeblue has got it wrong and the TRUST (Trust name was mentioned first on ccmb, as I personally prefer not to talk about you or them)are not going Tuesday night are they ?
They have not expressed their Concern and No correspondence by them has been sent or spoken to over the above issue ?

If that is so, then first correct it on ccmb and as NONE OF THIS HAPPENING THEN ITS ALL GO




THIS Keith is how it all STARTED, But if the TRUST ARE NOT GOING TO THE MEETING and they HAVE NO CONCERNS Claudeblue owes you an Apology for winding us ALL UP.


9:35 am

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

Annis

PLEASE read things properly.

Claude Blue (whoever he is) has NOT claimed that the Trust are opposed to any move.He refers to an implication he says appeared in a post ON THIS BOARD in a post which he claims was subsequently removed. He made no such claim himself.

I said that I have no idea if anyone from the Trust is going to the meeting on Tuesday.I certainly haven`t been invited , and am not aware that any other Trust board member has.

But , the Trust has not expressed its concerns about any seat move , either in any board meeting or in any other conversation that I have had with another board member.

OK Keith

Also Tim Hartley never sent an email to Wayne Nash regarding the Canton Stand etc(as I must have read an email wrong )

Then Claudeblue has got it wrong and the TRUST (Trust name was mentioned first on ccmb, as I personally prefer not to talk about you or them)are not going Tuesday night are they ?
They have not expressed their Concern and No correspondence by them has been sent or spoken to over the above issue ?

If that is so, then first correct it on ccmb and as NONE OF THIS HAPPENING THEN ITS ALL GO




THIS Keith is how it all STARTED, But if the TRUST ARE NOT GOING TO THE MEETING and they HAVE NO CONCERNS Claudeblue owes you an Apology for winding us ALL UP.


9:35 am

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

Annis

PLEASE read things properly.

Claude Blue (whoever he is) has NOT claimed that the Trust are opposed to any move.He refers to an implication he says appeared in a post ON THIS BOARD in a post which he claims was subsequently removed. He made no such claim himself.

I said that I have no idea if anyone from the Trust is going to the meeting on Tuesday.I certainly haven`t been invited , and am not aware that any other Trust board member has.

But , the Trust has not expressed its concerns about any seat move , either in any board meeting or in any other conversation that I have had with another board member.

Keith,

But it NEVER APPEARED ON HERE FIRST, AS YOU WILL SEE.
But your one of the Main persons of the Trust yet you know nothing about Tim Hartley emailing Wayne Nash on behalf of the TRUST ?
I dont want to put private emails on here, but have a chat with others first

annis you are not reading things properly here

annis you are not reading things properly here

LETS LEAVE IT THERE Sludge until Tuesday and wait and see who and why they are there

OK Keith

Also Tim Hartley never sent an email to Wayne Nash regarding the Canton Stand etc(as I must have read an email wrong )

Then Claudeblue has got it wrong and the TRUST (Trust name was mentioned first on ccmb, as I personally prefer not to talk about you or them)are not going Tuesday night are they ?
They have not expressed their Concern and No correspondence by them has been sent or spoken to over the above issue ?

If that is so, then first correct it on ccmb and as NONE OF THIS HAPPENING THEN ITS ALL GO




THIS Keith is how it all STARTED, But if the TRUST ARE NOT GOING TO THE MEETING and they HAVE NO CONCERNS Claudeblue owes you an Apology for winding us ALL UP.


9:35 am

Just found this from ClaudeBlue, He reckons its THE TRUST, IF SO TRUST PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR CONCERNS



Claudeblue wrote

The implication was that the Trust were opposed to allowing a group of supporters (numbers unknown) to move from the Ninian Stand to the Canton Stand. I am not aware that this is their stance and sought some clarification from posters on here.

Annis

PLEASE read things properly.

Claude Blue (whoever he is) has NOT claimed that the Trust are opposed to any move.He refers to an implication he says appeared in a post ON THIS BOARD in a post which he claims was subsequently removed. He made no such claim himself.

I said that I have no idea if anyone from the Trust is going to the meeting on Tuesday.I certainly haven`t been invited , and am not aware that any other Trust board member has.

But , the Trust has not expressed its concerns about any seat move , either in any board meeting or in any other conversation that I have had with another board member.

Keith,

But it NEVER APPEARED ON HERE FIRST, AS YOU WILL SEE.
But your one of the Main persons of the Trust yet you know nothing about Tim Hartley emailing Wayne Nash on behalf of the TRUST ?
I dont want to put private emails on here, but have a chat with others first

The worst bit of this is that someone for the club has so little respect for privacy that they have forwarded Tim Hartley's private e-mail on to you.

I hope someone from the Trust does go on Tuesday so Wayne can explain why that has happened.

aye , thats a concern , if anything

aye , thats a concern , if anything

Whats really pissing me off is that its being turned once again into an excuse to have a go at the Trust, which seems to happen over anything and everything on here.

And on Mike's board I'm sure some are coming up with crap due to dislike of individuals on here, people who they mst likely have never met, let alone spoken to.

Honestly - its like being in a schoolyard.

Hardly any debate about the actual issues and absolutely NOBODY has raised a legitimate problem with it.

Its a great idea, and there are a FEW potential problems, which can easily be ironed out. So lets all stick to the subject and not the personalities.

Gwyn hit the nail on the head with his post earlier.

aye schoolyard kick the trust nonsense , then the other board wades in with the opposite

I have had enough


( mind you I have said that before and come back )