**ALL USERS READ THIS, ACTION REQUIRED ASAP** - Sky Blues Talk forum statement (34 Viewers)

[Liquid Gold]

 

---

[Nick]

He genuinely has no interest. He's just a brush to try and clean up and put it under the carpet.

 

[Monners]

The trust have one aim. To install Hoffman as owner of the club and see this as an opportunity. It’s very obvious and I’ve always said they should just admit it and sell it to the fan base. Instead they pretend the “hold everyone to account” nonsense - they should just make this position clear and move on

I understand that I just think we need to not merely focus on the Trust. They are becoming irrelevant- the statement on its own, and the number of people who supported it demonstrated that.

Just think we should concentrate on the indemnity as the key issue in getting is back.

 

[Liquid Gold]

I think the objective of all of this should be to open up the trust. If we achieve that then it would be possible to put legitimate pressure on all parties as a more united fan base.

 

[Monners]

He genuinely has no interest. He's just a brush to try and clean up and put it under the carpet.

That is a bit bizarre I assume the offer to help with IT etc. is still there Nick?


If they don’t want to engage with the wider fan base , then ignore them.

 

[Nick]

I understand that I just think we need to not merely focus on the Trust. They are becoming irrelevant- the statement on its own, and the number of people who supported it demonstrated that.

Just think we should concentrate on the indemnity as the key issue in getting is back.

I agree but I also think the Trust are a key to more pressure about the indemnity.

Getting them and the telegraph to at least acknowledge it was a step.

So many people have no idea about the indemnity or things in general because they listen to people like the Trust and the Telegraph.

 

[Nick]

That is a bit bizarre I assume the offer to help with IT etc. is still there Nick?


If they don’t want to engage with the wider fan base , then ignore them.

Of course it is.

As said, I can open up sections on here for them and if there are sensible volunteers they can moderate it to make sure there's no tit for tat and everything is constructive.

 

[Monners]

I agree but I also think the Trust are a key to more pressure about the indemnity.

Getting them and the telegraph to at least acknowledge it was a step.

So many people have no idea about the indemnity or things in general because they listen to people like the Trust and the Telegraph.

We can live in hope Nick. In the ideal world the Board will listen.

 

[Nick]

We can live in hope Nick. In the ideal world the Board will listen.

People are pissed off through frustration of being brushed away and not listened to all the time

Let's hope they do listen and take things on board this time though.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Based on interacting with him on twitter I very much doubt anything will change. I hope I'm wrong but my impression is he's trying to brush us off. They're scared of opening up a voting system which really would democratise the whole thing.

 

[shmmeee]

Nick posting like I imagine he plays football, hit em early let em know you’re there

(said with love Nick)

 

[usskyblue]

Based on interacting with him on twitter I very much doubt anything will change. I hope I'm wrong but my impression is he's trying to brush us off. They're scared of opening up a voting system which really would democratise the whole thing.

We need to persist though, to expose that they are a closed shop.

 

[chiefdave]

We need to persist though, to expose that they are a closed shop.

He’s saying there can’t be an election to get someone else on the board and has admitted it was only existing board members who got to vote on the most recent additions. Couldn’t be any more of a closed shop!

 

[RegTheDonk]

Who's "Mark Dimmock" in those twitter threads, he seems sensible. Is he on here?

 

[shmmeee]

He’s saying there can’t be an election to get someone else on the board and has admitted it was only existing board members who got to vote on the most recent additions. Couldn’t be any more of a closed shop!

He can say what he wants, the constitution is quite clear on the process. They are a legally regulated body and can’t do whatever they want.

 

[Grendel]

Who's "Mark Dimmock" in those twitter threads, he seems sensible. Is he on here?

Mark82 bit naive to be honest

 

[usskyblue]

He’s saying there can’t be an election to get someone else on the board and has admitted it was only existing board members who got to vote on the most recent additions. Couldn’t be any more of a closed shop!

I was referring to the communication today regarding online membership and voting, along with communicating with the wider fanbase. He ‘said’ he’s emailed his fellow board members regarding it. Then got tetchy when I said we’d give him 24 hours before following up.

I know they’re a closed shop. Surely the more we expose it, the weaker they get.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

You say leave him to it, he posts mistruths constantly. It's very dangerous surely?

Don't disagree but I think more and more people are open to looking at all parties now, not just SISU. Let him have his opinion. More fool those who choose to preach the same sermon.

 

[mark82]

Who's "Mark Dimmock" in those twitter threads, he seems sensible. Is he on here?

Tis me

 

[mark82]

Tis me

There goes my anonymity

 

[mark82]

Mark82 bit naive to be honest

Not naïve, just antagonisation isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[rob9872]

I'd be more inclined to be involved if they really had the clubs interest at heart. It should be a condition that all members should be season ticket holders or resign imo, but some of these didn't even go to the Ricoh because of SISU. It's embarrassing really, but no interest in us returning, simply an agenda to get SISU out and Hoffman in so they have a sear at the top table. I wouldn't want those parasites involved any more than I do Fisher or Sepalla.

 

[shmmeee]

I'd be more inclined to be involved if they really had the clubs interest at heart. It should be a condition that all members should be season ticket holders or resign imo, but some of these didn't even go to the Ricoh because of SISU. It's embarrassing really, but no interest in us returning, simply an agenda to get SISU out and Hoffman in so they have a sear at the top table. I wouldn't want those parasites involved any more than I do Fisher or Sepalla.

No poor people/people who work shifts allowed. Top plan.

It’s already a condition of membership that you’re a fan IIRC.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

No one wants any thanks unless that thanks includes walking up to the Ricoh for the next home game

I’m pretty sure that if you define your success criteria as an organisation with things that are out of your hands you set yourselves up to fail.

Our success criteria has been easy

cwr want ccfc to change their attitude and come back to coventry
We don’t think that’s right and want others to know that.
I said it, we said it, our statement said it. Cwr acknowledges it and added wasps threw the club out for good measure

well that’s a tick

So what next?

we needed the trust to acknowledge the indemnity and that wasps hold the key to this

how?

well we called out the trust on the indemnity and the afternoon that the statement was published the trust acknowledged it, said they should have published stuff and added notes of meetings and letters to wasps

again for me a tick

So what next? This is where it’s tricky cos it’s out of our hands

Wasps remove indemnity
Ccfc / Sisu restate removal of all legal action against wasps

When?
What pressure can be brought?

get coventry back into coventry

when?
What pressure can be brought?

United sky blues fan voice

When?
How?
What does it look like?

That’s where my heads at

 

[rob9872]

No poor people/people who work shifts allowed. Top plan.

It’s already a condition of membership that you’re a fan IIRC.

Not at all what i meant and you know it. Besides anyone who has time to put into being on the trust should use tgat time working if finances are so tight.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

One of the Trust board has had discussions with Wasps about a Phoenix Club playing at the Ricoh. Surely that's worrying in it's self?[/QUOTEd]
When the Trust was resurrected seams like a hundred years ago now. It was done so because of what was seen as the very rea threat of the club going pop. As I understand it the Trust was brought back to life so that if it did happen a Phoenix club could be formed. No matter what people say it was never the intention to start a Phoenix club while CCFC was still in existence. At the time I thought it was a good idea but thinking about it now if it did happen that would be the end for me. Now going back to the original point stop talking about a Phoenix club until or if it happens.

 

[shmmeee]

No one wants any thanks unless that thanks includes walking up to the Ricoh for the next home game

I’m pretty sure that if you define your success criteria as an organisation with things that are out of your hands you set yourselves up to fail.

Our success criteria has been easy

cwr want ccfc to change their attitude and come back to coventry
We don’t think that’s right and want others to know that.
I said it, we said it, our statement said it. Cwr acknowledges it and added wasps threw the club out for good measure

well that’s a tick

So what next?

we needed the trust to acknowledge the indemnity and that wasps hold the key to this

how?

well we called out the trust on the indemnity and the afternoon that the statement was published the trust acknowledged it, said they should have published stuff and added notes of meetings and letters to wasps

again for me a tick

So what next? This is where it’s tricky cos it’s out of our hands

Wasps remove indemnity
Ccfc / Sisu restate removal of all legal action against wasps

When?
What pressure can be brought?

get coventry back into coventry

when?
What pressure can be brought?

United sky blues fan voice

When?
How?
What does it look like?

That’s where my heads at

All we can do really is keep our position clear and keep on at the media to amplify it during interviews with key players.

As for uniting people. General theory is to step out until you find points of agreement and focus on them.

Good luck.

 

[shmmeee]

Not at all what i meant and you know it. Besides anyone who has time to put into being on the trust should use tgat time working if finances are so tight.

I’m confused as to what your point is. Do you think Trust membership should only be open to ST holders or the board should only be that? Surely it’s up to members to decide how they want to use their vote?

Being a ST holder isn’t some fast pass into superfan status. And lacking one doesn’t kick you out the club. There’s loads of reasons people can’t commit to one.

 

[Nick]

I’m confused as to what your point is. Do you think Trust membership should only be open to ST holders or the board should only be that? Surely it’s up to members to decide how they want to use their vote?

That's the thing, it isn't really up to members is it?

It's not too much to ask that people on the board are ST holders is it?

 

[Skyblueweeman]

No one wants any thanks unless that thanks includes walking up to the Ricoh for the next home game

I’m pretty sure that if you define your success criteria as an organisation with things that are out of your hands you set yourselves up to fail.

Our success criteria has been easy

cwr want ccfc to change their attitude and come back to coventry
We don’t think that’s right and want others to know that.
I said it, we said it, our statement said it. Cwr acknowledges it and added wasps threw the club out for good measure

well that’s a tick

So what next?

we needed the trust to acknowledge the indemnity and that wasps hold the key to this

how?

well we called out the trust on the indemnity and the afternoon that the statement was published the trust acknowledged it, said they should have published stuff and added notes of meetings and letters to wasps

again for me a tick

So what next? This is where it’s tricky cos it’s out of our hands

Wasps remove indemnity
Ccfc / Sisu restate removal of all legal action against wasps

When?
What pressure can be brought?

get coventry back into coventry

when?
What pressure can be brought?

United sky blues fan voice

When?
How?
What does it look like?

That’s where my heads at

When? How? What does it look like?

Here's my thoughts on a plan:

Rightly or wrongly, the Trust have issue with some members of the forum. We therefore need a united front. I suggest that some of the more vocal ones on this subject from SBTa, meet up to discuss this in detail in terms of how can we work together - how can we work with them to help their objectives and try and mend a fragmented fan base. Then someone like you (the public voice of SBTa at the moment) or I can approach them with said plan to see what their thoughts are. Try and get us all around a table like adults if we can. People from SBTa and SBTr.

We can be open and honest and minute what's discussed in our little SBTa meeting. Publish them so we have nothing to hide. Share them with the CET and Observer if we have to. At least then we can be seen to being proactive and if the SBTr turn us down, it'll be in the media for all to see and won't reflect well on them.

I think if we have a joined up approach as a community and structure that approach so it's open, honest and has the best interests of the club at heart, then it 'might' have a different outcome. If it doesn't, well, at least we know we've tried as a community and it'll reflect badly on them when in truth, they could do with some help. The adverse media would be their look out.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

When? How? What does it look like?

Here's my thoughts on a plan:

Rightly or wrongly, the Trust have issue with some members of the forum. We therefore need a united front. I suggest that some of the more vocal ones on this subject from SBTa, meet up to discuss this in detail in terms of how can we work together - how can we work with them to help their objectives and try and mend a fragmented fan base. Then someone like you (the public voice of SBTa at the moment) or I can approach them with said plan to see what their thoughts are. Try and get us all around a table like adults if we can. People from SBTa and SBTr.

We can be open and honest and minute what's discussed in our little SBTa meeting. Publish them so we have nothing to hide. Share them with the CET and Observer if we have to. At least then we can be seen to being proactive and if the SBTr turn us down, it'll be in the media for all to see and won't reflect well on them.

I think if we have a joined up approach as a community and structure that approach so it's open, honest and has the best interests of the club at heart, then it 'might' have a different outcome. If it doesn't, well, at least we know we've tried as a community and it'll reflect badly on them when in truth, they could do with some help. The adverse media would be their look out.

All in good time

 

[rob9872]

I’m confused as to what your point is. Do you think Trust membership should only be open to ST holders or the board should only be that? Surely it’s up to members to decide how they want to use their vote?

Being a ST holder isn’t some fast pass into superfan status. And lacking one doesn’t kick you out the club. There’s loads of reasons people can’t commit to one.

I never said it was superfan and of course I dont mean trust members. If my original post wasn't clear I mean the trust board members that's why I said should resign their post.

 

[shmmeee]

I never said it was superfan and of course I dont mean trust members. If my original post wasn't clear I mean the trust board members that's why I said should resign their post.

OK. I don’t agree that holding a ST is particularly representative of your commitment to the club, but we’ll leave it there.

 

[Grendel]

Not naïve, just antagonisation isn't going to get you anywhere.

Neil is the definition of antagonism - the club will never talk to the Trust - Neil has openly slagged body off on the airwaves, they will never move from their position and the main people who decide this opinion stay silent

 

[Grendel]

No one wants any thanks unless that thanks includes walking up to the Ricoh for the next home game

I’m pretty sure that if you define your success criteria as an organisation with things that are out of your hands you set yourselves up to fail.

Our success criteria has been easy

cwr want ccfc to change their attitude and come back to coventry
We don’t think that’s right and want others to know that.
I said it, we said it, our statement said it. Cwr acknowledges it and added wasps threw the club out for good measure

well that’s a tick

So what next?

we needed the trust to acknowledge the indemnity and that wasps hold the key to this

how?

well we called out the trust on the indemnity and the afternoon that the statement was published the trust acknowledged it, said they should have published stuff and added notes of meetings and letters to wasps

again for me a tick

So what next? This is where it’s tricky cos it’s out of our hands

Wasps remove indemnity
Ccfc / Sisu restate removal of all legal action against wasps

When?
What pressure can be brought?

get coventry back into coventry

when?
What pressure can be brought?

United sky blues fan voice

When?
How?
What does it look like?

That’s where my heads at

Shen you say removal of legal action does that include the right of appeal if the complaint goes against them?