The trust were very publicly close with the haskell stuff, is that what they mean?
Yes they were, and if anything that may be seen as a mistake.
The thing is, everyone thought the club was up for sale, Sisu while not out the picture were not running the club technically, and here was a guy offering what the stated aim of the SBT is (fan ownership, full or part) of course they were going to talk to him.
You've also got to remember that for a long period Sisu wouldn't talk to the Trust and ACL did, so most of the information flow came from them. That doesn't make them biased, and really only Sisu can be blamed if they didn't get their side of the story out in time can't they?
The only question that really needs asking here is: have the Trust not represented the views of their members?
If the answer to that is yes, then they are failing in their job and should be taken to task, if the answer is no then you can't touch them as they are literally a representative body, you may as well bring all of Cov into disrepute.
As you know, I keep a bit of a firewall between me and official Trust stuff, mostly because I don't care that much, but I know for a fact that at that time the decisions being taken were for good, honest reasons. This started as a smear campaign with the previous Chair and now is continuing. My Dad, Steve, Jan, I challenge anyone who knows them or even comes into contact with them to say they are anything other than straight up, honest Coventry City fans.
I'll tell you the lengths that the Trust went to to stay neutral (and I thought this was crazy): When I went to away games with my Dad, when the "Sisu Out" chant starts, even if everyone including me around us joins in. He doesn't. The entire board have walked on eggshells to both actually be balanced and to show it publicly. My opinion has always been that they shouldn't, as that's not representative of the majority view of fans.
This is fucking Harriet Harman all over again, with Labovitch in the role of Daily Mail.