Trust Meeting (3 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

Surely that depends on how they hope to achieve that?

To an extent, yes.

But, I'd say it's unhelpful to go on about phoenix clubs if the avowed policy is seeing Coventry City play in Coventry. Ultimately, that's a basis that none of us can argue with, surely? Nobody *wants* to see us play outside of Coventry!

That's the only thing I can go on!

We are, ultimately, where we are. We can't turn back the clock, else we'd have told Derrick Robbins to be very, very careful who he sold his shares to!

So the question is indeed going forward, what that looks like.

 

---

[Nick]

To an extent, yes.

But, I'd say it's unhelpful to go on about phoenix clubs if the avowed policy is seeing Coventry City play in Coventry. Ultimately, that's a basis that none of us can argue with, surely? Nobody *wants* to see us play outside of Coventry!

That's the only thing I can go on!

We are, ultimately, where we are. We can't turn back the clock, else we'd have told Derrick Robbins to be very, very careful who he sold his shares to!

So the question is indeed going forward, what that looks like.

Yes but why are people mentioning Phoenix Clubs?

It's OK saying nobody wants us to play outside of Coventry but just saying that, what does it actually mean and what's going to change or be done to change that?

This is where the going forward stuff comes into it, it's not much different to when CJ would come on asking for ideas of how to pressure all sides just to try and tickle people's fancy but then totally ignore it. Soundbytes are good but it will be the actions that get people onside.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes but why are people mentioning Phoenix Clubs?

They didn't in the meeting I went to. The policy was Coventry City playing in Coventry, which was re-iterated numerous times by various members of the board.

 

[Nick]

They didn't in the meeting I went to. The policy was Coventry City playing in Coventry, which was re-iterated numerous times by various members of the board.

I mean why are they mentioning them now rather than at the meeting.

 

[shmmeee]

I mean why are they mentioning them now rather than at the meeting.

What answer do you want here Nick?

At some point you’ve got to forgive and forget and take people on their word.

NW seems to be trying to move forward, I’m not sure what the constant gotcha seeking helps TBH?

 

[Nick]

What answer do you want here Nick?

At some point you’ve got to forgive and forget and take people on their word.

NW seems to be trying to move forward, I’m not sure what the constant gotcha seeking helps TBH?

That's the thing, which word do we take? Somebody wrote a press release saying they had given up on CCFC in June and wouldn't be going to games etc but is now going to want to speak on behalf of city fans?

The word needs to be consistent, surely?

As I have said to NW I am more than happy to try and move forward and if needed work with whoever but that's why I am saying it needs to go back to basics and be about CCFC first and foremost. After all, look at how me and you can work together on something when it's about kids being taken to watch ccfc by their parents who couldn't otherwise go

This is the bit I am getting at about finding the common ground with all city fans to start to unite and build bridges, which is CCFC.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

NW seems to be trying to move forward

I think that's the thing. Yes, there's plenty (plenty!) I've disagreed with them over the years and yes, I'm sure there will be plenty going forward!

But what can I do bar feed back what I want them to do, listen to what they want to do, and hope that by doing both we meet somewhere acceptable to us both?

 

[olderskyblue]

I mean why are they mentioning them now rather than at the meeting.

I'm not sure I understand your point here nick. Who is mentioning a phoenix club now?

 

[Nick]

I'm not sure I understand your point here nick. Who is mentioning a phoenix club now?

People are only mentioning it because somebody who has previously pushed one and made a big song and dance about giving up on CCFC is now going to want to represent fans?

It's like making a big song and dance about turning to a vegan but then wanting to lead the meat eaters appreciation society.

What bridges are actually going to be built? Taking into consideration another new board member has openly said that people who use forums have no credibility, for example.

This is what I meant by take it back to basics and remember what people are actually angry about in the first place.

 

[shmmeee]

People are only mentioning it because somebody who has previously pushed one and made a big song and dance about giving up on CCFC is now going to want to represent fans?

It's like making a big song and dance about turning to a vegan but then wanting to lead the meat eaters appreciation society.

What bridges are actually going to be built? Taking into consideration another new board member has openly said that people who use forums have no credibility, for example.

This is what I meant by take it back to basics and remember what people are actually angry about in the first place.

But by this logic they shouldn’t let you or half the people on this forum anywhere near them as you’ve all said mental stuff about them. A line has to be drawn somewhere as well as a distinction between personality and organisation.

 

[Nick]

But by this logic they shouldn’t let you or half the people on this forum anywhere near them as you’ve all said mental stuff about them. A line has to be drawn somewhere as well as a distinction between personality and organisation.

I don't care what they have said about me though, you have called me all sorts (deserved sometimes or not) and I am more than happy to work with you on something that's positive

It's when people have gone out of their way to tell everybody a month ago they are done with CCFC and then want to represent fans or have pushed boycotts etc. That's a bit different.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't care what they have said about me though, you have called me all sorts (deserved sometimes or not) and I am more than happy to work with you on something that's positive

Which is the same principle here, surely? Something positive is getting Coventry City back in Coventry. But... they need feedback on what members want them to do, the approach to take.

Don't give that, and the approach is far more likely to be one you don't approve of!

 

[chiefdave]

What answer do you want here Nick?

At some point you’ve got to forgive and forget and take people on their word.

NW seems to be trying to move forward, I’m not sure what the constant gotcha seeking helps TBH?

If Fisher is on CWR later today and says we want the club playing in Coventry so we're going to build a stadium would everyone forgive and forget and take him on his word?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If Fisher is on CWR later today and says we want the club playing in Coventry so we're going to build a stadium would everyone forgive and forget and take him on his word?

I'd want to work with him to make sure that happens, absolutely!

 

[shmmeee]

I don't care what they have said about me though, you have called me all sorts (deserved sometimes or not) and I am more than happy to work with you on something that's positive

It's when people have gone out of their way to tell everybody a month ago they are done with CCFC and then want to represent fans or have pushed boycotts etc. That's a bit different.

I think these days we all say stupid shit on the internet or in a flush of anger. Someone’s got to be the bigger man is all I’m saying. If it’s directly related to the running of the Trust fair enough, if it’s something else then let it slide is my point I guess. No ones got clean hands here.

Frankly I only see the Trust as useful in the event of the fans needing to buy the club, and that’s not likely any time soon. May as well let it die out until then.

 

[Nick]

Which is the same principle here, surely? Something positive is getting Coventry City back in Coventry. But... they need feedback on what members want them to do, the approach to take.

Don't give that, and the approach is far more likely to be one you don't approve of!

It was also the same when it came to CCFC not leaving Coventry and CJ was making threads on here when they had no interest in what was said? What about when Wasps moved here and people were pointing out how it was bad for CCFC but the Trust were giving statements about it being a fantastic sporting occasion? What about when I was telling people at the Trust that there was somebody running social media accounts who would make them look bad and I was told how I was wrong over and over again?

The test will be how the feedback is processed, I don't mean the silly abuse I mean when something constructive is suggested that usually ends up ignored.

Something positive is also CCFC winning the league, however just saying that doesn't mean everything else should be taken at face value surely?

So, the Trust want CCFC to play in Coventry. What happens now they have said that?

 

[shmmeee]

If Fisher is on CWR later today and says we want the club playing in Coventry so we're going to build a stadium would everyone forgive and forget and take him on his word?

How does this comment help anything?

And yes, if that was then followed up by actions I would. I want that and it would be silly to be against it.

Jesus, I’ve been against Joy for a long time but when she starts doing things I approve of I give her my approval. My issue is with the behaviour not the person.

 

[Nick]

I think these days we all say stupid shit on the internet or in a flush of anger. Someone’s got to be the bigger man is all I’m saying. If it’s directly related to the running of the Trust fair enough, if it’s something else then let it slide is my point I guess. No ones got clean hands here.

Frankly I only see the Trust as useful in the event of the fans needing to buy the club, and that’s not likely any time soon. May as well let it die out until then.

Yeah but just calling somebody a twat or having a bicker isn't really the same as writing statements like that or going to the media to do video interviews and bullshitting about a boycott.

I'd say it is related to the running of the Trust really.

 

[Grendel]

I'd want to work with him to make sure that happens, absolutely!

Would Dave Johnson?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Someone’s got to be the bigger man is all I’m saying.

I agree. Otherwise we end up with endless circles, endless suspicion, and us all fighting when, really, we all want the same thing!

One thing's for sure, it's not me who's responsible for the club playing out of the city! Neither's Nick, you... or the Trust board ultimately. We're all powerless, but we need a strong voice to show the club matters to people, to show it's worth parties, be they SISU, Wasps, CCC, paying attention to City fans as not doing so obviously has a consequence. Currently, we're bickering over the minutiae and, much like the majority of time at Sixfields, that means we're likely to give the impression of apathy.

Maybe people'll let me down. Maybe I'll let people down in my life (wouldn't be the first time!) but for God's sake we've got to at least try and find a way forward. if the Trust are prepared to listen, do them the service of speaking to them. Rome wasn't built in a day and other cliches, we won't see instant improvements, but we've got to take the initiative to try and improve things rather than sit and snipe and expecting somebody else to do it for them.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I’ve tried giving the trust enough constructive stuff over the last 6 months and got nothing. Genuinely they can fuck off.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Would Dave Johnson?

I can't speak for him but, based on the meeting I went to, I'd come away with the impression he'd ask the appropriate parties the appropriate questions about land, planning permission, and progress.

Maybe I'm wrong but, again, that's the impression I got from the meeting. I can only call as I find it and, in a little ten minute presentation he did, he was rational, calm, not controversial, and appropriate in tone and desire to do things going forward.

That's the impression I got from the meeting. If a few more had gone they'd find it easier to confirm or deny that impression according to their own views.

What I won't do is hang people based on others' impressions, I'll judge each situation on its merits and, on a thread about the Trust meeting, I'll give my impression of him at said Trust meeting!

 

[Nick]

I agree. Otherwise we end up with endless circles, endless suspicion, and us all fighting when, really, we all want the same thing!

One thing's for sure, it's not me who's responsible for the club playing out of the city! Neither's Nick, you... or the Trust board ultimately. We're all powerless, but we need a strong voice to show the club matters to people, to show it's worth parties, be they SISU, Wasps, CCC, paying attention to City fans as not doing so obviously has a consequence. Currently, we're bickering over the minutiae and, much like the majority of time at Sixfields, that means we're likely to give the impression of apathy.

Maybe people'll let me down. Maybe I'll let people down in my life (wouldn't be the first time!) but for God's sake we've got to at least try and find a way forward. if the Trust are prepared to listen, do them the service of speaking to them. Rome wasn't built in a day and other cliches, we won't see instant improvements, but we've got to take the initiative to try and improve things rather than sit and snipe and expecting somebody else to do it for them.

Which is my point, saying that CCFC matters after writing a statement about how they have given up on CCFC, applauded Wasps, schemed with Hoffman, pushed a boycott, told the manager to keep his nose out and gone on about a Phoenix Club doesn't really work.

If the Trust listen now they have a new board and take things on board then fair play, I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. I have personally tried to take the initiative multiple times, people like Liquid Gold sat and wrote really constructive ideas after CJ made a thread to ask for them which ended up completely ignored.

As I have said, another new board member seems to think people who use forums have no credibility and when asked about the poll that Knowl did resorted to the usual "Are you Les or Frank" type shit. Where in that is there trying to build bridges with anybody?

How about asking "Why don't people feel represented?", "How would people feel represented?", "What would need to change so people did feel represented?" for starters?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

people like Liquid Gold sat and wrote really constructive ideas after CJ made a thread to ask for them which ended up completely ignored.

Where's that thread? I'll take it upon myself to distill the points into something easier to follow and send it to them direct.

 

[Nick]

Where's that thread? I'll take it upon myself to distill the points into something easier to follow and send it to them direct.

I will have a look now! I think it may have been this one: Albany Meeting ? or Wasps action but it might be across a couple.

It's one of the reasons I suggested a dedicated section that would be constructive comments / thoughts only that would be moderated especially.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I will have a look now! I think it may have been this one: Albany Meeting ? or Wasps action but it might be across a couple.

It's one of the reasons I suggested a dedicated section that would be constructive comments / thoughts only that would be moderated especially.

Ta. i thought there was a specific thread somewhere though? Did you set the link for the first one to go to a load of satirical insults?

 

[usskyblue]

Just like the owners, and subsequently the Council and Wasps, the Trust lost all credibility and trust with the fans.

Now we have an individual within the Trust who recently said he was done with the club. Which is another dodgy decision at best. Yet we’re all meant to suddenly be the bigger men and ‘move forward’.

I suggest the way forward being a complete clear out and restart with credible representation...or just shut the fucking thing down.

 

[Nick]

Ta. i thought there was a specific thread somewhere though? Did you set the link for the first one to go to a load of satirical insults?

Think that was just what came up when I googled it.

We have had specific threads but again they just end up ignored which is why people get ignored. The Albany one is a good example "What's the point in asking when it will just be ignored and it will be a SISU protest?" then it is exactly that at the end of it.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Just like the owners, and subsequently the Council and Wasps, the Trust lost all credibility and trust with the fans.

Now we have an individual within the Trust who recently said he was done with the club. Which is another dodgy decision at best. Yet we’re all meant to suddenly be the bigger men and ‘move forward’.

I suggest the way forward being a complete clear out and restart with credible representation...or just shut the fucking thing down.

Well there were six board vacancies for new people, unconnected with the current lot to apply for!

 

[olderskyblue]

How about asking "Why don't people feel represented?", "How would people feel represented?", "What would need to change so people did feel represented?" for starters?

Perception of the trust from the fans was one of the key points NW & myself put over at the meeting, and repeated it a good few times. David Eyles, the new chairman, definitely appeared to take that on board. Time will tell if that changes anything of course, but like NW, i'm prepared to wait and see, and also will go to more trust meetings to ensure the message continues.

It's a shame we didn't have anyone stand for election, they could have maintained that pressure within the board. Although, there are still positions vacant...

 

[Nick]

Perception of the trust from the fans was one of the key points NW & myself put over at the meeting, and repeated it a good few times. David Eyles, the new chairman, definitely appeared to take that on board. Time will tell if that changes anything of course, but like NW, i'm prepared to wait and see, and also will go to more trust meetings to ensure the message continues.

It's a shame we didn't have anyone stand for election, they could have maintained that pressure within the board. Although, there are still positions vacant...

Maybe if the perception changes people may make more of an effort to go to them?

Hopefully with Dave E in charge that will be a focus rather than just ignored with anybody who disagrees with the Trust being a "SISU Lover" or must be "Les".

This isn't a new thing, it has been the same for years.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Well there were six board vacancies for new people, unconnected with the current lot to apply for!

Again, why would I get involved with that stuff? Want to cancel Brexit? Join the Brexit Party and stand for nomination.

 

[Nick]

Again, why would I get involved with that stuff? Want to cancel Brexit? Join the Brexit Party and stand for nomination.

Yep, it does seem an easy way to palm away any sort of criticism regardless of how constructive it is.

Same as how anybody on a forum has no credibility etc.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Again, why would I get involved with that stuff? Want to cancel Brexit? Join the Brexit Party and stand for nomination.

Want to cancel brexit? Stand on a platform against brexit.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yep, it does seem an easy way to palm away any sort of criticism regardless of how constructive it is.

Not really. The Trust board are there because no other bugger stood.