FAO TLG

Not going to deign to post on your territory, but in reply to your comments.

"To be honest, I am genuinely mystified as to where this idea that I have been "shooting down the march" has come from. The fact is that I've done no such thing. All I have done is question its aims and objectives, which I reckon is fair enough considering the stated aims and objectives in the publicity produced by the organisers changed dramatically following the EGM. "

Yes, indeed, TLG, it has been noticed. Every single post you make regarding the march questions the aims and objectives ad nauseum. Some would perceive that as continual sniping; others would claim you're merely helping people by seeking clarification. I'm sure you'd believe it was the latter should people question Trust activities.

"Before then, the march was very clearly labelled as a 'Ridsdale Out' demonstration. Now, it appears the objectives are a lot less clear. Indeed, judging by the answers I received to my question on the other forum, this march means very different things to different people. Some still see it as purely a 'Ridsdale Out' march. Others are apparently demonstrating because they want the whole of the current board out, while many simply want to express their anger and frustration at the club's current situation."

People will always have different views on how they perceive it - funnily enough different people have different opinions and are allowed to do so. For some, it will be a protest against Ridsdale only; for others, against the entire board. The aim and objective is a protest march against the fiasco the club has become. That's the overriding aim; sub-aims will be individual.

Which you thus have to concede indicates the march will be reflective of the fanbase. Which is a good thing, given the greater publicity that will arise from it than from the EGM.

"Curiously, two totally unconnected threads I have started recently have been deemed to be digs at the march by the organisers, when in actual fact they were nothing of the sort. In the first, I asked those fans who seemingly want the whole of the current board to pack up and leave what they think would happen if Ridsdale and Co did all step down. And in the second, I commented on the fact that Steve Borley is seen by some supporters as a hero one minute and the anti-Christ the next. I simply asked what his status is at present, as I'm having trouble keeping up with the dramatic mood swings regarding Borley on all the message boards."

Sadly, TLG, I credit you with far too much - maybe just too much - intelligence there to take the above at face value. The fact seemed way too co-incidental given your constants barbs about the aims and objectives of the march. The second I'd probably agree if I'd bothered reading your thread closely.

But anyway, why ask me? I'm not an organiser of the march. If you want to ask the organisers of the march if they think those threads were digs at the march, then I'll suggest a novel approach that might work. Ask the organisers yourself. Unlike some, TLG, I don't claim to know what is going on in others heads or speak for people capable enough of speaking for themselves.

"Both of those threads obviously had absolutely diddly-squat to do with Saturday's demonstration. I reckon the organisers, and some of those who are very strongly in support of this event, have become way too precious about the whole thing. They are seemingly looking for criticisms that simply aren't there. As I am (wrongly) viewed as an opponent of the march, it appears that anything I say is now being taken as a dig at it. That is not only unfair, but it is ridiculous. To be perfectly frank, I don't care enough about the march to spend any time deliberately trying to undermine it. As far as I'm concerned, if people want to demonstrate they are perfectly entitled to do so. Indeed, some of my best mates will be marching on Saturday. However, as I have already stated, it's not for me."

Well, since you seem to believe organisers felt contrary to your intention above, there must have been something in those threads was perceived incorrectly. Maybe it's a communication issue, maybe you could have phrased things in a better manner.

I'd also add that you could turn the whole phrase around - there are equally people too precious about the Trust. Those perceptions are both down to individuals, not entities.

"I'm also puzzled by your comments about the Trust trying to force another EGM. The fact of that matter is that the Trust has no intention of doing so, and our representatives have never said we will. Instead, it has been stated that we are seeking an urgent meeting with club officials to further discuss the current situation. That meeting has already been arranged and will take place very shortly."

TLG, the Trust ethos was to get an EGM - get the 5% required. Except an EGM happened anyway, which took the wind right out from under your sails given you freely commented you spent time developing questions for an EGM. If the plan was thus always to force an EGM, well it happened. And the fact remained that it didn't exactly reveal anything major that wasn't already known. There was no major smoking gun found, no clue that would cause Ridsdale to go.

What are the aims and objectives of this meeting you plan to organise? To get the TRUTH from Ridsdale et al? In a meeting with no legally binding context? Expect Ridsdale to cry "MEA CULPA! MEA CULPA!" and beg forgiveness having been found out by those peksy kids? Sorry for the sarcasm, but given the performance in the EGM, unless you guys have found something incredible in the EGM everyone else has missed, there's little prospect any such meeting will help the situation.