Poll: The trust - fit for purpose? (4 Viewers)

[rob9872]

Is this him? You see he looks a lot like the chap on your website

Rochdale grooming scandal report: Ex-council boss told to give back £76k golden handshake

I hope not! If that is him then he doesn't represent me. They can keep my quid but I'd like to formally revoke my membership if he doesn't stand down.

 

---

[Nick]

You should re-introduce that idea as it’s a good one.

I looked at the time, not too hard to get produced. Proceeds to charity.

Suggested it to The Jimmy Hill Legacy fund as well but they couldnt get them produced easily Would have been perfect if they could bang them out in that name, money goes to them.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Thing is CJ I know and understand why the Trust wants to put the boot into the owners and rightly so.
But this statement, for me, was purely about the various supporters groups putting out an appeal for all sides to find a solution in order to secure the future of CCFC.
I don't think it would have hurt them to put their name to it.

Yeah...

I don't doubt the commitment, never have. They have more commitment than me to turn up regularly and put their head above the parapit. There's also a few of them who definitely want to improve things and listen to members.

This seems to be another own goal not to put their name to this statement however. And there are a few of them over time. Just when you think they're rowing back, something happens that makes you wonder. This has become a shitstorm when it had no need to be.

 

[clint van damme]

Yeah...

I don't doubt the commitment, never have. They have more commitment than me to turn up regularly and put their head above the parapit. There's also a few of them who definitely want to improve things and listen to members.

This seems to be another own goal not to put their name to this statement however. And there are a few of them over time. Just when you think they're rowing back, something happens that makes you wonder. This has become a shitstorm when it had no need to be.

it's almost as if someone wanted to distract from City support showing a unified front.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

it's almost as if someone wanted to distract from City support showing a unified front.

That would be a horrible thought I wouldn't want to countenance.

But yeah... it's all straight out of the SISU book of misdirection and divide and rule... even if unwittingly!

 

[Nick]

That would be a horrible thought I wouldn't want to countenance.

But yeah... it's all straight out of the SISU book of misdirection and divide and rule... even if unwittingly!

I wouldn't say it was unwittingly. Just watch "Jimmy Hill Way" and other accounts fire up trying to do it.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I hope not! If that is him then he doesn't represent me. They can keep my quid but I'd like to formally revoke my membership if he doesn't stand down.

Can you actually revoke your membership? They say they are the biggest group after taking a quid off people years ago but it would be good to know how many people are actually involved. The whole thing needs a complete rethink.

 

[rob9872]

Can you actually revoke your membership? They say they are the biggest group after taking a quid off people years ago but it would be good to know how many people are actually involved. The whole thing needs a complete rethink.

Well at the moment like most I'm a non-active couldn't care less member about a pointless group, but I certainly wouldn't want to be associated as a member of any group represented by a nonce sympathiser.

 

[ccfctommy]

Yeah that's it, is it still going?

No he knocked it on the head a few years ago. Was a good laugh there.

 

[Grendel]

Well at the moment like most I'm a non-active couldn't care less member about a pointless group, but I certainly wouldn't want to be associated as a member of any group represented by a nonce sympathiser.

I guess we need to wait for the explanation from CJ. After all he has just stated open and transparent communication with its members is the way forward.

 

[oucho]

Pretty straightforward - I’m actually interested in the wider community view on this one

They seem to fairly reflect my own views, but everyone has a different view so it's impossible to represent every view amongst the fanbase.

I think there are two questions at play;
1) do they put out reasonable points of view, even if these do not represent ALL fans?; and
2) even if the answer to the above is "yes", is the trust fit for purpose (as per the title of this thread).

I think the two are different matters really. As above, they seem like a reasonable bunch to me although I have never had any real contact with them and do not know any of them personally. Their statements generally seem sensible. HOWEVER, they do not represent all fans as an umbrella group - if such a thing is "the purpose" of such a "trust", then clearly they are not fit for this purpose, they're just another group of fans who possibly ought to drop the use of the word "trust" in their name.

On a related note.and I have literally no idea about this one.....are they actually a trust i.e. is this just a name or do they have some kind of charitable trust status?

 

[mark82]

I guess we need to wait for the explanation from CJ. After all he has just stated open and transparent communication with its members is the way forward.

Think it'd be only fair for him to look into it properly before commenting. Does look very much like it could be him though.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Pretty straightforward - I’m actually interested in the wider community view on this one

Going up the Ricoh now there are 2, sometimes 3 kinds of fan I notice. The old season ticket holders who will go no matter what and who have no particular view on the ownership or ground situation (or if they do, it's sympathetic to the club). Then there's younger fans, either ST holders or walk up who can't stand either SISU or Wasps and just want the club to do well. They grew up with the club mostly in the FL and haven't known better times. The third type only appear when a trip to Wembley or a lucrative cup tie is on the horizon and ask you to sit somewhere else at home games because they quite like the view they have in your seat.

Do I think the Trust board want the club to succeed of course, but do I agree with how they go about their business no. Do they represent the views of most fans I think, being objective, they probably do.

 

[Skybluefaz]

The largest city supporters group represent themselves more than they do the fans.

 

[Nick]

Why is the Trust secretary all over those dodgy accounts setup just to push an agenda which clearly isn't about CCFC?

 

[torchomatic]

Nope. Fucking useless.

 

[torchomatic]

Don't come on here much anymore as not worth the hassle.
Just want to point out that I am not on the Trust Board, however I go to meetings when I can and fully support the Sky Blue Trust and what they stand for.

Which is?

 

[Liquid Gold]

I'm shocked that there are 19 people who think they're doing well.

 

[rob9872]

I'm shocked that there are 19 people who think they're doing well.

A greater point perhaps is that I'd wager a large proportion if not all of those who voted "no" (63 so far) are lapsed members who the trust say they represent and yet are so out of touch they represent none of our views.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

A greater point perhaps is that I'd wager a large proportion if not all of those who voted "no" (63 so far) are lapsed members who the trust say they represent and yet are so out of touch they represent none of our views.

I do get the lifetime membership as a way to get people to join up, and also saving on admin chasing each year. Practically, it must mean they struggle for funds anyway?

I'd have thought it makes sense to charge each year and keep up-to-date on who's interested (or not!) but then... sure there is a rationale behind it.

 

[Nick]

They are still throwing out that they represent the most fans so that people listen to them.. How? It's more and more obvious they represent nobody but the few board members.

 

[Nick]

Loving the irony that if you say anything about the Trust you must be on SISU's Payroll. Shows just how easily some people believe the shit that is put out.

Let's face it, if the Trust and those around them want to start making rumours up with fake social media accounts they don't really have anything about them to discuss things.

 

[Fergusons_Beard]

Have always said it.

Trust have never had the Clubs best interests at heart because they can’t get past the SISU thing.

At one point they put out almost a daily press release criticising owners.

Now strangely quiet.

Only heightens what was always the case-that they are not independent and really are an anti-owners group rather than what they always should have been-a pro-club.

So as an independent pro-club Trust, they are not fit for purpose


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Otis]

I'm shocked that there are 19 people who think they're doing well.

I voted 'yes' but only because I don't think it is as black and white as Grendel says it is.

I could just have easily said no,

I most certainly don't think they are doing well. Not by a long chalk.

I think they have done some good stuff, but then have got a lot of stuff wrong too.

I can't just conclude they are not fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean I am happy with them.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I voted 'yes' but only because I don't think it is as black and white as Grendel says it is.

I could just have easily said no,

I most certainly don't think they are doing well. Not by a long chalk.

I think they have done some good stuff, but then have got a lot of stuff wrong too.

I can't just conclude they are not fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean I am happy with them.

I think the comment above yours puts it very well and shows they are not fit for purpose.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

I suppose the next question is:

If SISU don’t drop the legals, do the trust just give up?

If yes, then no they’re not fit for purpose. If no, then who do they target? What’s their plan?

 

[chiefdave]

If no, then who do they target? What’s their plan?

This has been my issue for a while. Realistically, unless we move out the city which nobody wants, we have to play at the Ricoh so to resolve the current situation either Sepalla has to stop all legal action or Wasps have to agree to talks and a short term deal until it is all resolved.

Given that there has been years of protesting against the owners - before, during and after matches both home and away; disrupting matches; protests at SISU offices; matches and so on what does the trust think is likely to happen in the next 5 months to change things? I can't see that there is any plan of action let alone anything likely to work.

On the other side you have Wasps who have shown themselves to be very reactive to negative publicity. Yet the trust refuse to criticise them and continue to take shots at SISU. I don't see how their actions are in any way helping and now they are actively working against the club. The trust refusing to put their name to the statement that every other fans group signed up to gives Wasps an easy out. A unanimous front and the questions get a lot harder for Wasps.

 

[clint van damme]

This has been my issue for a while. Realistically, unless we move out the city which nobody wants, we have to play at the Ricoh so to resolve the current situation either Sepalla has to stop all legal action or Wasps have to agree to talks and a short term deal until it is all resolved.

Given that there has been years of protesting against the owners - before, during and after matches both home and away; disrupting matches; protests at SISU offices; matches and so on what does the trust think is likely to happen in the next 5 months to change things? I can't see that there is any plan of action let alone anything likely to work.

On the other side you have Wasps who have shown themselves to be very reactive to negative publicity. Yet the trust refuse to criticise them and continue to take shots at SISU. I don't see how their actions are in any way helping and now they are actively working against the club. The trust refusing to put their name to the statement that every other fans group signed up to gives Wasps an easy out. A unanimous front and the questions get a lot harder for Wasps.

Great post CD.

 

[Nick]

This has been my issue for a while. Realistically, unless we move out the city which nobody wants, we have to play at the Ricoh so to resolve the current situation either Sepalla has to stop all legal action or Wasps have to agree to talks and a short term deal until it is all resolved.

Given that there has been years of protesting against the owners - before, during and after matches both home and away; disrupting matches; protests at SISU offices; matches and so on what does the trust think is likely to happen in the next 5 months to change things? I can't see that there is any plan of action let alone anything likely to work.

On the other side you have Wasps who have shown themselves to be very reactive to negative publicity. Yet the trust refuse to criticise them and continue to take shots at SISU. I don't see how their actions are in any way helping and now they are actively working against the club. The trust refusing to put their name to the statement that every other fans group signed up to gives Wasps an easy out. A unanimous front and the questions get a lot harder for Wasps.

They will refuse to even say anything slightly negative about the council or wasps. They are too far in and too involved with other parties for that.

They did Wasps PR for them when they moved here saying how amazing it was FFS. It's as if they think that Wasps and CCC are going to batter SISU and let them have the club to run.

There is no harm in saying:

SISU: Sort it out, drop the legals as you are killing the club. If you dont care about CCFC, why are you here?
CCC: Can you confirm your statements you have made as they seem to contradict? Why did you lie about it all? why dont you care about the football club either?
Wasps: You have already done a deal, you have bullshitted enough yourselves too. You need to sit down and do a deal for the good of the club and the city (not SISU).

Why are they involved with fake Twitter accounts that actively defend the council? Did they ever confirm who it was working with the Council's PR company?

Nobody ever seems to be able to answer those, they will just get a dodgy twitter account to make out the people asking questions work for SISU or something instead. Ironic.

 

[Otis]

I think the comment above yours puts it very well and shows they are not fit for purpose.

Have to disagree, LG. For me, not fit for purpose is rip the whole thing up and start again.

I think it needs a shake-up for sure and they are not doing a very good job at all at the moment, but I think it just needs a change of tack.

Think their stance needs a rethink to be in line with the general supporter thinking (or maybe we are too militant on here?)

 

[letsallsingtogether]

A greater point perhaps is that I'd wager a large proportion if not all of those who voted "no" (63 so far) are lapsed members who the trust say they represent and yet are so out of touch they represent none of our views.

TBF the trust should put this to their members to get a true picture.
I would have thought that 50% of those that voted on here are not even members.

For sure Grendel Torch etc are not members yet are the most anti trust on here.
Don't think they would back any trust that wouldn't back the Club if it left Coventry.
IMHO.
I myself am a lapsed member went to the quiz might and meet the players night's but can't be arsed anymore with the general meetings think most people have given up.
Saying that I think most will come back if we do end up in complete shit again, abait maybe too late by then.

 

[Nick]

TBF the trust should put this to their members to get a true picture.
I would have thought that 50% of those that voted on here are not even members.

For sure Grendel Torch etc are not members yet are the most anti trust on here.
Don't think they would back any trust that wouldn't back the Club if it left Coventry.
IMHO.
I myself am a lapsed member went to the quiz might and meet the players night's but can't be arsed anymore with the general meetings think most people have given up.
Saying that I think most will come back if we do end up in complete shit again, abait maybe too late by then.

So people's issue is that they wouldn't back the club moving?

Ok then. It's probably one of the major issues that they seem to be on another planet with no interest in listening to fans.

Still, if all else fails just make things up. It's as if away from the few people at meetings you genuinely can't see why people might disagree.

It's OK though, they can just setup a few Twitter accounts and make loads of shit up.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So people's issue is that they wouldn't back the club moving?

Ok then. It's probably one of the major issues that they seem to be on another planet with no interest in listening to fans.

Still, if all else fails just make things up. It's as if away from the few people at meetings you genuinely can't see why people might disagree.

It's OK though, they can just setup a few Twitter accounts and make loads of shit up.

Here we go again accusing people of making stuff up you really are a one liner when you don't have a reply.
BTW I said some have you a couple of names sure there are others funny how not many that went to sixfields are members.
Honestly had enough of your constant bullshit this site has gone to the dogs.
Happy Xmas to you all.

 

[Nick]

Here we go again accusing people of making stuff up you really are a one liner when you don't have a reply.
BTW I said some have you a couple of names sure there are others funny how not many that went to sixfields are members.
Honestly had enough of your constant bullshit this site has gone to the dogs.
Happy Xmas to you all.

I am saying people are making stuff up because they are, it's a fact. Why is it when I suggested to some on the board about particular accounts setup just to make things up to mislead city fans there was no appetite for saying anything about it? Maybe somebody could explain that one, I was quite specific about the ones I meant as well. I have posted links on here to the ones who are just making things up.

Point out exactly what I have said is bullshit? How do you know exactly who and who isn't a member?

The thing is, you keep firing things out and have absolutely no response because you don't know what you are talking about. It's alright saying "this site has gone to the dogs" because everytime you and your mates get proven to be talking nonsense you have nothing else to say.

You said I was making things up about some people on the Trust board boycotting as well, you were adamant they weren't. Who was right and who was making things up?

Either you really don't have a clue what you are on about or you are just blindly defending and being made to look a bit silly. Same as you don't know the secretary of the trust!

 

[letsallsingtogether]

I am saying people are making stuff up because they are, it's a fact. Why is it when I suggested to some on the board about particular accounts setup just to make things up to mislead city fans there was no appetite for saying anything about it? Maybe somebody could explain that one, I was quite specific about the ones I meant as well. I have posted links on here to the ones who are just making things up.

Point out exactly what I have said is bullshit? How do you know exactly who and who isn't a member?

The thing is, you keep firing things out and have absolutely no response because you don't know what you are talking about. It's alright saying "this site has gone to the dogs" because everytime you and your mates get proven to be talking nonsense you have nothing else to say.

You said I was making things up about some people on the Trust board boycotting as well, you were adamant they weren't. Who was right and who was making things up?

Either you really don't have a clue what you are on about or you are just blindly defending and being made to look a bit silly. Same as you don't know the secretary of the trust!

Why should I know the Secretary of the Trust have seen him there may have spoke to him but I don't know him personally met you but don't know you personally ether.