[Doug]

Originally Posted by simon

BOY o BOY am I glad jack barret was not as negative and cynical as you doug.........

Why O Why do people insist on bringing Jack Barrett’s name in to play as a counter argument. I think that Jack Barrett will be appalled at both sides, but on balance I think he would also understand both arguments, but unlike the rest of us he wouldn’t engage himself in this mire pit.

Jack Barrett is a stalwart supporter and respected bridge builder and under appreciated bulwark of this club. His name should never have been brought into this.

I’ll skip the bull and go to the point.

I am very grateful to Mr. Khan and Mr. Marsden, we may well have lost the club but for them, However; combined they would have held around 22% of the club of which neither are a Director.

Mr. O’Neil holds an alleged 51% with the rest of the Board making up the bulk of the holding.

Net result: CONTROL.

Scream, shout, threaten, protest, withhold your money, stay away, make all the allegations people can dream up; but unless the current ownership wills or allows it any ambition for change or a supporters trust is going no where without their say so.

What I am trying to say is voice our opinion “loud and clear” and then accept the situation because I see little or no change at Accrington Stanley this or next season without us working with them.

What I think Jack Barrett would agree with is that all this “From both sides” continues to undermine confidence of the people we need most. New Blood (supporters) and Inward Investment (sponsors).