olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Well, as long as somebody gets involved to make the counter argument, hopefully it will ensure that the trust realise that not everyone thinks the hate should only be aimed at SISU.
Well, as long as somebody gets involved to make the counter argument, hopefully it will ensure that the trust realise that not everyone thinks the hate should only be aimed at SISU.
Nick
Administrator
So if I was going to offer time to be able to help something within my skillset would I have to stand for the board to be able to listened to / heard or be able to help out with things that I may know about?
Have they asked why people don't go to meetings, for example?
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
They created it. They tarnished it. No one wants to be involved with it.
Hence wind it up and start again IF credible representation comes forward.
Nick
Administrator
Where have they been if they don't realise that already though?
It is the same as the season ticket gofundme, why did they need persuading to put out a tweet about it? Why are they so far out of touch in the first place?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
We raised that as well, saying it was a serious misjudgement on their part. David E agreed.
Just to add there were 4 of us there raising these points.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Or... we can leave the floor free to one viewpoint, and wonder why that's the only viewpoint taken.
Nick
Administrator
Thankyou!
The thing is, why was it a misjudgement? Who misjudged to totally ignore it and why?
It's all well and good saying "we misjudged it" but they also obviously misjudged the bloke with all of the social media accounts they repeatedly told me I was wrong about for months.
Who is doing the judging?
Nick
Administrator
OR the floor could be opened up to more than 30 odd people by using technology as it's 2019? Otherwise the next time somebody does an interview they really shouldn't be speaking on behalf of city fans?
Does it say something that a complete forum is discredited and ignored and it's said by a board member that the members have no credibility but due to one of the members (with no credibility apparently) and others helping push it over £16k is raised in less than a month for fellow fans yet it took days of me nagging for the Trust to put out a tweet through gritted teeth?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
We all know, from our viewpoint, the trust have made many mistakes. We didn't go into why they have made them, only highlighted them to hopefully bring some change. Again, time will tell.
Nick
Administrator
Surely "why" they misjudged something like that is important going forward to be able to stop all of the misjudging from keep happening?
There's already comments from one the other new board members "misjudging".
Hopefully Dave E will come in as a fresh start and help and I hope he does.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
It was my first meeting for a few years (an excuse for not asking every question you can think of..), and tbh, we did take up a large part of the "open to the floor" section as it was. But, a worthwhile question to ask.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I believe the trust are beyond saving. Until they prove otherwise I'm not going to get involved with them I'm going to actively work against their existence.
Nick
Administrator
Not saying it is your fault and thankyou very much for raising it
It's just unless those things are dealt with rather than happening over and over and just saying "we misjudged it" every time as it ends up not really being valid.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Not saying it is your fault and thankyou very much for raising it
It's just unless those things are dealt with rather than happening over and over and just saying "we misjudged it" every time as it ends up not really being valid.
Agreed
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Actively working against them is a bit pathetic tbh
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I think they harm us collectively and we won't move forward as a fanbase until they're gone.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Not that I condone working against them, but that was the Trust’s manifesto with SISU. And how they burned their bridges to even begin to bring the protagonists in this clusterfuck together.
How are we going to ‘move forward’ with the relationship with ownership?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
I would think any suggestions would be welcome on that one
tbf, when this all kicked off, they probably were representing the majority going head on with SISU. As you say, bridges get burnt going that way.
Nick
Administrator
I would think any suggestions would be welcome on that one
tbf, when this all kicked off, they probably were representing the majority going head on with SISU. As you say, bridges get burnt going that way.
The thing is, they have gone all in. If anybody mentioned anybody else they were made out to work for SISU or be a SISU lover.
They went too far into it to be able to back out of it and then say "actually, you know what we need to shout at some others as they have done wrong".
Even when things coming out like ACL trying to get Wasps to the Ricoh in 2012 there was no comment at all, it is still all SISU 100%. Yeah we know SISU are pricks but when evidence comes out to say others are also, don't just ignore it. React to it and adapt.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
I would think any suggestions would be welcome on that one
tbf, when this all kicked off, they probably were representing the majority going head on with SISU. As you say, bridges get burnt going that way.
This is where the most damage was done. The taking of sides has left the Trust out on a limb. I don’t see a way back unless ownership allow it. And why would they ?
Unless perhaps, the Trust come out with a acknowledgment of their mistakes, a clear message of a change in their approach and their intent to work WITH ownership.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Well, i mentioned at the meeting that when the SISU letter came out, with no response from Duggins, it was the perfect opportunity for the trust to ask some searching questions of CCC. I used it as an example of why the perception is that they're only against SISU, and not looking to all the other protagonists.
We did get the majority of the time in the "open forum" between the 4 of us, so fair play, nobody shut us down for dominating the discussion. I don't get that much air time at home, that's for sure..
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
With a new chairman, they do have the opportunity to try that now.
Nick
Administrator
Well, i mentioned at the meeting that when the SISU letter came out, with no response from Duggins, it was the perfect opportunity for the trust to ask some searching questions of CCC. I used it as an example of why the perception is that they're only against SISU, and not looking to all the other protagonists.
We did get the majority of the time in the "open forum" between the 4 of us, so fair play, nobody shut us down for dominating the discussion. I don't get that much air time at home, that's for sure..
Did they say why they don't ask questions of CCC?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Didn't give them time to tbh, wanted to make a few more points.. :emoji_smile:
Mild-Mannered Janitor
Kindest Bloke on CCFC / Maker of CCFC Dreams
It has been a really difficult time for the trust since its inception, the information now available, looking back to what we all knew then versus now, and board members were no different to us and was limited.
To many of us, it looked like SISU were a major factor in taking us away from our "home" ground to Northampton and therefore, rightly so at the time, the focus was hard against SISU.
As more information has come out over the years, the focus could have and maybe has changed, always difficult to do as a group as it is made up of individuals with differing views and also different to many other fans.
I think the trust has provided some good, it has been tarnished at times which is hard to recover, people don't forget or forgive easily and that will live with the trust (ask Lee Burge what its like).
Whatever form it takes going forward, it should be clear about some core aims, not have too many, it could be as simple as "getting Coventry playing in Coventry". I am no expert but if they are set akin to that, then there is a common goal to deal with all stakeholders in the same way to achieve that, whether it be Anti this or anti that, it is done so with a focus on that core objective.
Hindsight and the facts available now are a wonderful thing and I know my views have changed during this whole period. Adapting and managing by fact is always preferable to believing people's opinion.
It should aim to be a "questioning body" that aims to find out those facts and distill the truth to fans.
To many of us, it looked like SISU were a major factor in taking us away from our "home" ground to Northampton and therefore, rightly so at the time, the focus was hard against SISU.
As more information has come out over the years, the focus could have and maybe has changed, always difficult to do as a group as it is made up of individuals with differing views and also different to many other fans.
I think the trust has provided some good, it has been tarnished at times which is hard to recover, people don't forget or forgive easily and that will live with the trust (ask Lee Burge what its like).
Whatever form it takes going forward, it should be clear about some core aims, not have too many, it could be as simple as "getting Coventry playing in Coventry". I am no expert but if they are set akin to that, then there is a common goal to deal with all stakeholders in the same way to achieve that, whether it be Anti this or anti that, it is done so with a focus on that core objective.
Hindsight and the facts available now are a wonderful thing and I know my views have changed during this whole period. Adapting and managing by fact is always preferable to believing people's opinion.
It should aim to be a "questioning body" that aims to find out those facts and distill the truth to fans.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The thing is though, a healthy criticism of SISU is needed, as is calling them to account.
The Trust should never end up lapdogs of the club, but be prepared to be strong and call them to account when needed.
And let's face it, there's been plenty of need for that over the past dozen years! I don't want them to stop that, I just want them to add other criticisms as well.
Nick
Administrator
I don't think they are willing to accept any other facts, that's the problem.
It's easier to just say Les Reid is making things up and ignore it and carry on shouting at SISU rather than looking into it and questioning.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point. You need to see some action because there's been so many instances of Fisher making claims then not following through.
It's the same with the Trust. They get stick then there's a meeting where they say they must communicate better, modernise, listen to fans etc and people take the time to offer their services and put forward suggestions only to be ignored. I'm sure if people actually start to see a change in the trust and pressure being put on other sides then more people will engage with them but for now they've burnt their bridges with many people.
Esoterica
Well-Known Member
If though Hoffman has offered the Trust 10% in the club or a seat on the CCFC board if he takes over, and knowing as we do now that there's some kind of Wasps backing for his consortium, it would be easy to understand their complete reluctance to challenge anyone but SISU. Wouldn't want to bite the hand that has promised to feed you.
And if getting Coventry back in Coventry via that method is the core aim then it's going to be very very messy and damaging to the club, at a time when things are better at the club than they have been for a long long time (playing location aside). 'We did stuff but we just didn't tell you' is a leap of faith I'm not prepared to make. It seems much more likely to me too that they didn't want to plug the season ticket fundraiser because they don't want people going to St Andrews. So another 'that was a misjudgement' is again hard to swallow.
There has to be something more than words now for me to even think about believing they've had a change of heart.
And if getting Coventry back in Coventry via that method is the core aim then it's going to be very very messy and damaging to the club, at a time when things are better at the club than they have been for a long long time (playing location aside). 'We did stuff but we just didn't tell you' is a leap of faith I'm not prepared to make. It seems much more likely to me too that they didn't want to plug the season ticket fundraiser because they don't want people going to St Andrews. So another 'that was a misjudgement' is again hard to swallow.
There has to be something more than words now for me to even think about believing they've had a change of heart.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Criticism is one thing. Taking sides and only going after SISU is another. It also has to be constructive. In order to foster a new relationship the Trust effectively have to do a 180.
I don’t think they can, but I’ll be happy to see it happen.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm sorry, but this burning bridges is a lazy excuse. I offered the opportunity of a Wasps protest, I offered the opportunity to give feedback, and I get feeble excuses, or convenient vanishing whenever I bring it up.
Then, all credibility is lost and the claim that it's a load of empty keyboard warriors gains credence.
Nick
Administrator
So why do they keep trying to make out people are stupid and can't see straight through it, that's what I don't get?
They insult people's intelligence too often to the point I don't even think they realise they are doing it.
"Quick, give them a soundbyte to shut them up for a minute and they won't even realise"
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I genuinely don't think SISU would be co-operative if the Trust did their job properly.
Now, that doesn't stop them doing their job properly with other sides however... but having bridges burned with SISU hardly makes them unique! Personally, I'd say they were doing their job better of holding others to account if bridges ended up burned with other parties too...
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Certainly not if they don’t try.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
I suggested in the thread started by CJ
1) SISU - start getting a new stadium built, let’s see tangible proof that it’s happening.
2) Wasps - fucking drop your ludicrous demands for indemnity, and let’s get a deal that suits both parties. Or organise boycotts, publically condemn their presence given that they’ve done what we done when we went to Northampton and Birmingham (Trust are against this when we do it - but wasps are good)
3) Council - Work with the club to get them a home, prompt options if you have to - back sisu into a corner.
Once all of this is done we can see the real villains in this piece
Of course 2 & 3 were ignored and it went to “SISU SELL UP”
1) SISU - start getting a new stadium built, let’s see tangible proof that it’s happening.
2) Wasps - fucking drop your ludicrous demands for indemnity, and let’s get a deal that suits both parties. Or organise boycotts, publically condemn their presence given that they’ve done what we done when we went to Northampton and Birmingham (Trust are against this when we do it - but wasps are good)
3) Council - Work with the club to get them a home, prompt options if you have to - back sisu into a corner.
Once all of this is done we can see the real villains in this piece
Of course 2 & 3 were ignored and it went to “SISU SELL UP”