And I still completely agree with you Pete !. My only point real point was not about the "power", it was about the ability for the Club to have funds pumped into it like other clubs do. I suppose what I mean is if the Trust membership were all active, and all singing from the same hymn sheet, and all in some parallel universe agreed on the same things all the time, even if that happened, and they for example decided to remove a Director, what happens next ?, the club are still skint and the next scapegoat has to try and operate under the same very tight constraints untii the populace gets bored of his / her failure to deliver as well, which is inevitable under the current model....hardly attractive to many executives or managers....give them access to some cash and we might just attract better people and push on. If you give them a tight and low budget and tell them they are never allowed to exceed it, they will immediately (rightly) try and achieve the best they can within it, but will not (if they are intelligent professionals) expect to seriously push boundaries against much better resourced teams in more accessible parts of the country. What's wrong with trying to get the Trust to provide more cash ?With respect AV, I think you've countered your own argument there.
No, shareholders don't run businesses but "We own our football club" and, unless you're called Sir Phillip Green, you don't stand by and watch your businesses progressively failing without attempting to do something about it. That's simply irresponsible.
Have you not noticed that, generally, owners of football clubs with the traditional ownership model tend to take drastic action when results become consistently poor, attendances reduce and income drops significantly? Sometimes they do so far too frequently admittedly, but five years of disappointing results and performances would simply never be tolerated in the real world.