Supporters trust meet with KM and RM

I happily acknowledge we are starting to see the club take just a few steps in the right direction yet major concerns remain.

We now have a set of aims defined by the club but this is not "mission accomplished". "Vision statements" have little meaning unless you can define them, and the substance behind them. We still need clarity.

- What does a competitive Championship Club actually mean? Top six? Top half? Avoiding relegation?
- What does Premier League ambitions actually mean?
- What is the owners financial commitment to fulfilling these goals? Are such goals achievable with the 3rd lowest budget in the division?

Few would argue with the elements in the clubs' strategic proposals. Balancing the budget - acquiring, developing & selling players - investing in the stadium - building the best academy - are all elements of a successful football club but regrettably there is one key issue to address.

These elements cannot be seen as "isolated activities". They must unerringly be geared at all times to delivering successful first team football performances. It is the one "given" of every football fan paying at the match day turnstile. It sets the club focus and will align the approach of everybody coaches, players and fans.

Dilute the link to such an "objective" and you dilute the most basic aspiration in the game and the message to your supporters. I see little evidence of any passion or conviction to this "end game" and much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

It is fundamental to how the club operates. If you want to compete in the championship you set a budget accordingly. If you need to trade profitability from player recruitment you set that budget accordingly. It poses the questions just how and where was the £9mn investment and 40% increase in wages spent? Delivering the most successful team possible? Recruiting young prospects for future profit? If the business operates with equal focus on these dual objectives it risks falling between 2 stools.

Kermorgants' departure was a perfect example. It weakened the senior playing squad. Were sales funds used to strengthen the senior squad or was Paryszek bought for development and future trading?

To date;
- The investment portfolio with the likes of Vetokele and Paryszek is not performing. No player acquired under the Staprix system has turned a profit. All sales revenue to date has been from playing assets already at the club.
- Currently we are 22nd

The club is not meeting its own performance benchmarks. No matter the Q&A claims of success the business is failing.

It was precisely why we needed the club to articulate their vision. It defined the "built in conflicts of interest" and positions.
- any player acquisition as not necessarily being in support of the team but an investment opportunity.
- the squad structure as not necessarily being in support of team performance but of future trading opportunities.

In light of earlier comments I should register I am completely independent. For the Q & A meeting I was approached by supporter groups to see if I could attend. I appreciated the offers but for personal reasons it was not possible. I was happy to offer some clarity on the points I have made all too frequently on this board. Those involved will know the full script of my positioning of the then forthcoming meeting. I will respect the confidentiality of such communications. I imply no criticism of any of the attendees.

I am not a member of the Trust. As evidenced by the differences on this board I simply see too great a diversity of opinion to bring forward a commonly agreed cogent agenda and deliverable goals. The softly, softly approach evidenced to date is a case in point but I am not going to criticise any form of dialogue which has been achieved. It is another small step forward.

To give any dialogue any credence, I am sure there is enough business knowledge within CAS Trust to know it is crucial to ensure there can be no appearance of any manipulation of events. The delayed minutes by the club of the October Fans Forum minutes is a case in point. The focus has to be an "open" and constructive dialogue.

The remit of the talks undertaken appears to be very narrow, reflecting primarily the club executives intent to finally progress the Target 20,000 initiative. In light of the Q & A it is limited progress. Moving forward I can but suggest there needs to be a "trade off" in terms of supporting the club initiatives, which I wholeheartedly support, and a real dialogue addressing the range of issues of the day which have inundated this and other more strident message boards.

I appreciate the difficulty of the situation and people are giving up their own time to promote the interests of all supporters whether they agree with their methods or not. However the words surrounding a revamped "Fans Forum" appear at present to be merely token. There has to be a completely different tone, scope and terms of reference attached to any such "new assembly".

If not then even the small step taken will flounder. This really is not difficult. This is not a middle east peace negotiation it is the operations of a football club in south east London. The Club must to stop talking to the edge of the debate and embrace this opportunity.

As the club starts "talking the talk" there is still a very long way to go before they are "walking the walk".