Of course the Board can do whatever they like.Danieljwaterhouse wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:31 pmI understand your ‘thinking’, I’m still laughing. As you are in the face of capitalism.
The board spent the money, they took the risk, they invested their expertise they rightly deserve to profit from that.
As a person in every other aspect of your life, you invest your money, in return for a service. If you don’t like that service, you can take your money and invest it elsewhere in hope of a better return.
There seems to be a tribalistic juxtaposition in football where fans seem to think they are entitled to direct the position of clubs development without taking an risk to your own personal wealth just because you’ve chosen to align yourself with that particular brand.
Garlick and co have bettered the club during their ownership. They’ve delivered something beyond most of our possible dreams and now they rightly can choose to rest on their laurels and sell to whoever they damn well like without being beholden to anyone.
I am suggesting their investment was not motivated by rational financial decisions. They invested primarily as fans with a desire to act as custodians of the club. It has understandably grown beyond their financial capabilities or risk appetite.
So, how would a custodian act faced with these circumstances? Would they pocket £200m and walk away? Or, would they look for creative solutions to safeguard the future of the club? If not a supporters Trust with a place on the Board, what other solutions might work?
I don't think it is particularly revolutionary to promote supporters interests and representation on a football forum. Nor would I reject the idea because we've got a few bell3nds on the same forum.