Can you hear the Yeovil sing ...?

Cruncher is back with a follow-up to his blog of last week, 'Get over the hump'. Is there anybody out there listening?

Can you hear the Yeovil sing? I can't hear a ...

Well, you know the rhyme. Although there are some signs of warming up the vocal chords for a performance or two. Once the Board went for the ostrich technique, it was inevitable that they would invite more criticism and less trust. Just as it was clear that once Matt Scott was on the scent of the shareholders documents, that he would eventually find them. This is increasingly becoming a saga about inevitabilities; if the Board remain obstinate, there is no doubt Digger's spade-work will be followed up until eventually he starts up the JCB. The more you bury yer head in the sand, the easier it is to get yer arse kicked.

On motive, I remain open-minded. I do, however, see why the wider view may be falling the other way, largely due to the lack of explanation and debate. For all that is good at the club, silence and non-engagement unfortunately is a common theme, meaning a bolted-door policy over the years on other matters has now impacted on this single vital issue, to affect the benefit of doubt: one of the afore-mentioned inevitabilities.

As it happens, based on John Fry's long service and how the club is perceived in the wider football world, my instinct remains that there is good intention - though I sincerely wish the route avoided separation. I wish also that local and/or supporter investment had been sought as a preferential strategy, including accepting well-chosen new directors for their input and ideas as well as their money.

Apart from The Guardian, the press have been shy while supporters have been penned-in like sheep subdued by a wall of silence. On this issue, that has a proven as well as a potential risk, sheep don't stay penned-in for ever. The silence of the lambs has ended, the flock has broken free to find its voice with questions, and the club needs to find its own voice with comprehensive answers. Digger breaking through the topsoil does seem to have got the club reaching for the throat-spray. Let us hope that what they do say addresses the issues full-on, especially with regard to safeguarding the club and ensuring it benefits wholly from its own assets.

No-one wants development to be off-agenda, this small club needs to create revenue. The opportunity is there for the club to understand, then explain and engage, and then to achieve by unity. A lack of such action though will compound an opposite and divisive effect. With crowds having dwindled significantly compared to a few years back, that is relevant to the here-and-now, as well as the future. 'Achieve by Unity' is the club's motto, and (as the Guardian article highlighted) the Charter also demands debate on such issues.

I noticed Denison Till and their belief in asset-separation alongside understanding of 'football difficulties' a couple of months ago, when searching around to find more clues in general. I made and repeated a general enquiry that was not responded to, though accept an explanation given. Since Digger's disclosure that the club is consulting with them I contacted them again, combining my initial general points with YTFC relevance.

Consultant Andrew Lindsay (while understandably and politely expressing his unavailability to comment specifically or to continue a dialogue) sang the praises of the Yeovil directors, as he had done to Digger, confidently assessing the Yeovil Board as ranking high on integrity and commitment to both club and community, in his many years of experience; also re-assuring (without detail) that the proposed route was both safe and wise; and he viewed the current Yeovil business model as notably superior to how most lower league clubs were run.

All well and good. Now it is time for the Yeovil Board to sing the praise of their own proposals, and that will inevitably have to include detail. The Capital Glovers Open Letter was a fair and respectful open-minded approach, which I would ask the club to note as reflecting the general view of a great many of us. I know that others are making similar approaches and seeking other routes of help and advice - as is the inevitable outcome when explanation goes AWOL. If that compounded further, the collective opinion would strongly suspect that satisfactory explanation was not possible - the worst scenario.

This is not a stand-off from uninformed (oh the irony) supporters, but a plea from a realistic support that wants to be allowed to share a vision that they want proven as an exciting way forward they can take part in. Sing up.

Cruncher