I'm not wasting my nice long post I wrote while Nick was busy locking the original thread and pinning it A good start, hopefully to be expanded on. Just a shame that with the trust for every step forward they take about ten are taken backwards. If they had just come out with this and a statement all sides were to be pressured people would be happy. Instead we've got this off the back of a secret patting each other on the back session with the council and the piece from Johnson. Agree with Nick that it would be a good idea to make the questions consistent especially considering some of our fans aren't always the brightest with this sort of thing. A minor point with this part I think an illustration of what this actually means would be handy, ie give some example figures. IMO without that a lot of people will translate it to CCFC get 50% of everything spent rather than 50% of the share of the profit ACL is entitled to. That's a huge difference, car parking was discussed on here recently so thats a good example. People will see this and think £5 of their £10 parking will go to the club when it worked out to actually be around 10p. 'CCFC is not involved in the court action' could probably use a clarification that whilst OEG is the named company it doesn't follow that Dave Boddy, as Chief Exec, can call a halt to the legal action. Suspect many will chose to interpret the explanation in this article as proof that the club could stop legal action tomorrow if they wished. Loses its way a bit when it gets to the Sky Blue Trust section which seems to be asking leading questions to enable the required response to be given. Nobody has ever claimed the Trust have a legal means of applying to place the club in to administration, the claim is that they want to be involved in ownership of the club. Fine in itself and actually confirmed by the trust constitution. The concern has always been that this desire, among some on the board and its associates, overrides other preferable scenarios.