Trivela have their controlling interest in the club - namely they’ve provided the finance for the purchase of the land.
As Bonser showed over 2 decades this was the key to holding sway over the clubs fortunes.
There is no longer need for the Trivela personnel to be involved day to day, and as such they’ve stepped back. That my initial take on it, anyways. Might be wrong, but it’s the only way of reading it that makes sense
Gamble is pretty clearly being lined up as the Uk based “chairman” of some description. Felt pretty much laid out at the last meet the chairman event.
It wasn’t lost, I felt it was misplaced
Either way I don’t recall this being mentioned in the Trivela roadmap.
Thanks for the heads up, missed that.
Has there ever been a roadmap, or actual plans of any sort of detail from Trivela?
He pretty much addressed anything that related to the long term. Pomlett reiterated his decision to step away, Boycott bigged up Gambles importance to the running of the club going forward. Gamble even addressed how the club will look “in 20 years time” so that’s just how I took it.
Yes, it involved them owning the club and moving us forward on and off the field, not stepping back after 12 months having facilitated a finance agreement.
I’m only annoyed at the lack of clarity. This is not normal. BB was supposedly being mentored by LP, now neither are acting chairmen.
If Gamble is named as chairman, will that affect season ticket sales given some people’s opinions of him?
Well they (or any owners) would say that, wouldn’t they.
My point was more that they have always been (deliberately?) vague and lacking any sort of detail publicly of how they intended to “take us forward on and off the field”.
When did things become so complicated?
What happened to the days when we were just about football 
Maybe it’s just an organisational change and we’re no longer a club with any specific individuals with “significant control” but instead we’re now an anarcho syndacalist commune? 
BTW There’s no one in the playing squad with signicant control either. 
Is that the case?
Whilst the documents filed today say Boycott and Polk have ceased to be persons of significant control, the directors listed are still the same and active.
I also note there has been mention on UTS of charges against the land/freehold in the past.
Looking on companies house now there are 2 identical charges dated in December which appear to be tied to the land/freehold. One is in the name of First National Bank who I believe provided the finance for Trivela. But the other charge also tied to the land/freehold is solely in Pomletts name?
It shouldn’t take a comms genius to work out that an out of the blue Companies House notification, showing our two main American Directors are handing over control of their shares would rightly raise a lot of questions.
Surely it wouldn’t be difficult to issue an accompanying statement/message from Boycott to clarify what this means and how it doesn’t have an effect on their vision for the Club etc?
99% of me believes that there is nothing to worry about, but there still seems to be a lingering Bonserite mentality hanging round the Club that continues to discourage transparency.
There we go statement issued by the club clearing it up.
Good clarification from the club
I agree…There are questions to be asked.I hope they are raised at the meeting on Monday. I won’t be there due to a prior engagement . There may be nothing to worry about but it needs sorting.
As if by magic… 
Yes magic it is…