Sky Blues Trust AGM (20 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

The problem is that any dissenting voices have been in the past ridiculed and slapped down. Therefore not getting the platform to be in a position to be elected.

the perception is if you don’t agree with the leadership, you’ll be silenced. It’s genuinely scares me that they may get some power

That’s all well and good and I’ve heard it before but it’s not an actual real thing is it? “Silenced” by who? How? Just a feeling?

Fact is there’s legal requirements on how trusts are run, if you could prove they’re not meeting them youd have a stick. But any time anyone suggests it everyone goes quiet and is suddenly washing their hair.

Said this before, but look at Militant in Labour in the 80s and how they put the hard yards in and learned the rule book and played it to their advantage. The world is run by those who turn up at the end of the day. It may be effort to get change but it’s not impossible. I suspect the real problem is people can’t be arsed to get out from behind a keyboard and actually go to meetings. Last time I raised this all I got back was excuses “it’s the wrong time” “I’m miles away” “they won’t listen anyway”. Well sorry but that just says you can’t be arsed to me. And they can. So they win. That’s democracy

 

---

[Frostie]

Yeah the independent fans group designed to act as a balance to the owners should be the hand picked group run by the owners. Makes sense.

I know I’ll get pelters for this, but if the majority of fans wanted new leadership at the Trust, it’s a democratic organisation by law and they could get it. Your problem is organisation and motivation not the national structure for fan representation. Let’s be blunt we’ve seen exactly how many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Fans have provided tonnes of feedback & offers of help to convert the Trust into what it is supposed to be, every single one fell on deaf ears.
What happened to the results of that survey they posted back in November? Swept under the carpet because they didn't like the results no doubt.

 

[shmmeee]

Fans have provided tonnes of feedback & offers of help to convert the Trust into what it is supposed to be, every single one fell on deaf ears.
What happened to the results of that survey they posted back in November? Swept under the carpet because they didn't like the results no doubt.

See above.

 

[usskyblue]

Where are we with online member voting that was being **considered ?

** was it fuck

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

That’s all well and good and I’ve heard it before but it’s not an actual real thing is it? “Silenced” by who? How? Just a feeling?

Fact is there’s legal requirements on how trusts are run, if you could prove they’re not meeting them youd have a stick. But any time anyone suggests it everyone goes quiet and is suddenly washing their hair.

Said this before, but look at Militant in Labour in the 80s and how they put the hard yards in and learned the rule book and played it to their advantage. History is written by those who turn up at the end of the day. It may be effort to get change but it’s not impossible. I suspect the real problem is people can’t be arsed to get out from behind a keyboard and actually go to meetings. Last time I raised this all I got back was excuses “it’s the wrong time” “I’m miles away” “they won’t listen anyway”. Well sorry but that just says you can’t be arsed to me. And they can. So they win. That’s democracy

The first paragraph you don’t believe, you know full well that they publicly denied the indemnity clause, and also ridiculed any suggestion of it.

the trust when out of their way to target Grendel, the fake profiles all members of the trust. Neil white claimed he wanted to listen to all sides. He went out of his way to slap people down.

I never said they were doing anything illegal. Like I said, there’s never a platform for people to dissent due to the above.

 

[Frostie]

That’s all well and good and I’ve heard it before but it’s not an actual real thing is it? “Silenced” by who? How? Just a feeling?

Fact is there’s legal requirements on how trusts are run, if you could prove they’re not meeting them youd have a stick. But any time anyone suggests it everyone goes quiet and is suddenly washing their hair.

Said this before, but look at Militant in Labour in the 80s and how they put the hard yards in and learned the rule book and played it to their advantage. The world is run by those who turn up at the end of the day. It may be effort to get change but it’s not impossible. I suspect the real problem is people can’t be arsed to get out from behind a keyboard and actually go to meetings. Last time I raised this all I got back was excuses “it’s the wrong time” “I’m miles away” “they won’t listen anyway”. Well sorry but that just says you can’t be arsed to me. And they can. So they win. That’s democracy

I'd give examples of how they break their Constitution but when I actually try to access their website I'm greeted by a huge warning saying that their site is unsafe...

 

[shmmeee]

I'd give examples of how they break their Constitution but when I actually try to access their website I'm greeted by a huge warning saying that their site is unsafe...

Not really disproving my point here my man.

 

[Nick]

He doesn’t he’s on the fsa nothing to do with the trust

Of course he is.

Very naive to think otherwise.

 

[Nick]

That’s all well and good and I’ve heard it before but it’s not an actual real thing is it? “Silenced” by who? How? Just a feeling?

Again, pipe down with the conspiracy-type crap.

We all know how it has been attempted and who by. Just facts.

 

[Frostie]

Not really disproving my point here my man.

Not a huge fan of visiting harmful websites so not sure exactly what you're expecting...




Off the top of my head:

Fairly sure it's in their Constitution that every member should be advised in writing of the date, venue, details & agenda of their meetings, including this evening's AGM. Was that the case?

They have to keep an accurate register of every single registered member. Numerous reports on here say that people have written to them & they have no record of them joining or not. How can that be?
Why do they keep pedalling this myth of "representing 3000 members" when in reality they have zero idea?

They are required to file minutes for each & every board meeting, these have never been routinely shared despite promises they would. Having flagged this up routinely to them a bunch were then eventually uploaded but with loads missing, probably a couple of years ago now, & none ever since.

I don't know if it's still the case on this one but they routinely failed to file accounts until publicly called out on it by Tim Fisher in 2016:

MINUTES: Supporters Consultative Meeting, Wednesday 12 October 2016, 6.00pm

Read all the minutes from the latest SCG meeting, including CCFC Chairman Tim Fisher...

www.ccfc.co.uk

As I say, if I (or anyone with a bit more legal knowledge) could actually access the site there's probably countless others.

Utter sham of an organisation.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yeah the independent fans group designed to act as a balance to the owners should be the hand picked group run by the owners. Makes sense.

I know I’ll get pelters for this, but if the majority of fans wanted new leadership at the Trust, it’s a democratic organisation by law and they could get it. Your problem is organisation and motivation not the national structure for fan representation. Let’s be blunt we’ve seen exactly how many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Supporters forum is not handpicked by the club it contains all the supporters groups.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

That’s all well and good and I’ve heard it before but it’s not an actual real thing is it? “Silenced” by who? How? Just a feeling?

Fact is there’s legal requirements on how trusts are run, if you could prove they’re not meeting them youd have a stick. But any time anyone suggests it everyone goes quiet and is suddenly washing their hair.

Said this before, but look at Militant in Labour in the 80s and how they put the hard yards in and learned the rule book and played it to their advantage. The world is run by those who turn up at the end of the day. It may be effort to get change but it’s not impossible. I suspect the real problem is people can’t be arsed to get out from behind a keyboard and actually go to meetings. Last time I raised this all I got back was excuses “it’s the wrong time” “I’m miles away” “they won’t listen anyway”. Well sorry but that just says you can’t be arsed to me. And they can. So they win. That’s democracy

I attended

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Of course he is.

Very naive to think otherwise.

What’s he got to do with ccfc Nick?

 

[shmmeee]

Supporters forum is not handpicked by the club it contains all the supporters groups.

Who decides what’s a supporter group and who represents them?

Who controls the meeting schedule/agenda?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Not a huge fan of visiting harmful websites so not sure exactly what you're expecting...

View attachment 21064
View attachment 21062

Off the top of my head:

Fairly sure it's in their Constitution that every member should be advised in writing of the date, venue, details & agenda of their meetings, including this evening's AGM. Was that the case?

They have to keep an accurate register of every single registered member. Numerous reports on here say that people have written to them & they have no record of them joining or not. How can that be?
Why do they keep pedalling this myth of "representing 3000 members" when in reality they have zero idea?

They are required to file minutes for each & every board meeting, these have never been routinely shared despite promises they would. Having flagged this up routinely to them a bunch were then eventually uploaded but with loads missing, probably a couple of years ago now, & none ever since.

I don't know if it's still the case on this one but they routinely failed to file accounts until publicly called out on it by Tim Fisher in 2016:

MINUTES: Supporters Consultative Meeting, Wednesday 12 October 2016, 6.00pm

Read all the minutes from the latest SCG meeting, including CCFC Chairman Tim Fisher...

www.ccfc.co.uk

As I say, if I (or anyone with a bit more legal knowledge) could actually access the site there's probably countless others.

Utter sham of an organisation.

Email sent to all members of agm
Last two years accounts one agreed as audited and one draft to 31/1/21
2800 members as at the last accounts
Work ongoing on website

I have notes of the whole meeting but this particular aspect interested me

I’ve no particular axe to grind with any individuals I only really knew Bruce Walker and Dave Eyles chair and Secretary. Both of whom are standing down from positions over the next year but staying on the board

The work done by the lady with the fsa was impressive the new comms guy seemed to genuinely want to communicate and update the website etc.

Only about 2or3 members attended. I asked the only question which people were quite defensive about. Since others stepped up and tried to make things happen the trust have been more conciliatory.

The main point shmmee makes is valid decisions are made by those in the room

There’s some real fans involved in the trust much like on here and in the various supporters groups.

Im interested to see where the fsa stuff goes but at the moment

The trust is not in a position to speak on behalf of ccfc supporters
The trust is not professional enough to wield the power the fsa is seeking from the government
I have huge doubts that the game will accept any of the suggestions I heard last night

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Who decides what’s a supporter group and who represents them?

Who controls the meeting schedule/agenda?

The first question isn’t really a question asked. Any genuine group of fans is included. Presume most groups elect a chair. We are the only different one in that I sort of said I would without an election
The chair is Colin Henderson and I am the vice chair and take minutes. Colin and me in his absence control the agenda/ meeting

 

[shmmeee]

The first question isn’t really a question asked. Any genuine group of fans is included. Presume most groups elect a chair. We are the only different one in that I sort of said I would without an election
The chair is Colin Henderson and I am the vice chair and take minutes. Colin and me in his absence control the agenda/ meeting

What’s a “genuine group of fans”?

How do I get rid of you and Colin if I don’t think you represent my interests?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

What’s a “genuine group of fans”?

How do I get rid of you and Colin if I don’t think you represent my interests?

It’s not perfect.

Anyone that says they are
We’re voted for each year

 

[shmmeee]

It’s not perfect.

Anyone that says they are
We’re voted for each year

Do you see my point though?

It’s not democratic, it’s entirely at the behest of the club who is there and there’s no mechanisms for those outside to influence it. If you go rogue and decide to ignore us all no one can stop you.

That’s not to say it good or bad or anything in between. It’s just not democratic and it’s controlled by the club however indirectly.

As shit as the Sky Blue Trust may or may not be it’s got structures that ensure should a majority of fans feel strongly enough they could shape it’s official position. That’s exactly what’s happened several times.

That’s why trusts are being given this power and not random self appointed/club appointed groups of supporters.

Democracy: the worst form of governance except for all the others.

 

[Frostie]

Email sent to all members of agm
Last two years accounts one agreed as audited and one draft to 31/1/21
2800 members as at the last accounts
Work ongoing on website

Thanks Pete.

re: e-mailing members, there must be plenty on here that are in that alleged 2,800 - can anybody confirm they are a member & received it? And that they expressly stated they are happy to receive invitation by email?

Work ongoing on website is a joke - it's actually gotten worse.

Sorry, but while same faces remain you're not going to convince many that anything will change.

So, with that in mind & if the FSA are right that they may get more power, how do we challenge this? Can we create a different group providing it had regulations/constitution etc & register with the FSA?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

re: e-mailing members, there must be plenty on here that are in that alleged 2,800 - can anybody confirm they are a member & received it?

I thought I was a member(!) and no email.

 

[Frostie]

I thought I was a member(!) and no email.

 

[Frostie]

Also, constitution states membership should be reviewed & renewed on an annual basis with an annual fee.
Apart from handing over £1 in the pub or outside the Ricoh decades ago, has anybody ever been asked to renew?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well... I will add the caveats that I tend to ignore them anyway, so if they'd sent me one a year or two ago telling me they were going to stop sending me emails, I probably wouldn't have noticed

FWIW though I agree with shmmeee's general point (when me and olderskyblue went along, there weren't enough of us there to vote down the board nominations - but it was there to be done!) but... if I / we aren't told when the meetings are, it takes away my moral high ground in that respect.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I thought I was a member(!) and no email.

9/7/21

 

[Deleted member 5849]

9/7/21

No email on that date. My emails on that date were CCC thanking me for reporting a missed bin collection, an offer of penis enlargement, my Mum telling me all about her Tesco order, and notifications from a group I'm in.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I thought I was a member(!) and no email.

Email them to check why

[email protected]

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Thanks Pete.

re: e-mailing members, there must be plenty on here that are in that alleged 2,800 - can anybody confirm they are a member & received it? And that they expressly stated they are happy to receive invitation by email?

Work ongoing on website is a joke - it's actually gotten worse.

Sorry, but while same faces remain you're not going to convince many that anything will change.

So, with that in mind & if the FSA are right that they may get more power, how do we challenge this? Can we create a different group providing it had regulations/constitution etc & register with the FSA?

I haven’t fully decided yet I think we need to make the sky blues trust what we’d like it to be. It helps to engage and talk and discuss and build relationships but I’m not convinced that unifying the various groups is possible

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Do you see my point though?

It’s not democratic, it’s entirely at the behest of the club who is there and there’s no mechanisms for those outside to influence it. If you go rogue and decide to ignore us all no one can stop you.

That’s not to say it good or bad or anything in between. It’s just not democratic and it’s controlled by the club however indirectly.

As shit as the Sky Blue Trust may or may not be it’s got structures that ensure should a majority of fans feel strongly enough they could shape it’s official position. That’s exactly what’s happened several times.

That’s why trusts are being given this power and not random self appointed/club appointed groups of supporters.

Democracy: the worst form of governance except for all the others.

Problem is the sky blue trust have always said “they don’t represent the supporters only it’s members” with numbers of 2800 that represents less than 1/3 of season ticket holders, and that’s if they all have them.

on top of that some of those members were signed up whilst pissed in the colly of all places.

no way should any football fan group be given powers of veto over club policy

 

[oakey]

I got an email from them.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Problem is the sky blue trust have always said “they don’t represent the supporters only it’s members” with numbers of 2800 that represents less than 1/3 of season ticket holders, and that’s if they all have them.

on top of that some of those members were signed up whilst pissed in the colly of all places.

no way should any football fan group be given powers of veto over club policy

You need to work out how else it could / would work

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

You need to work out how else it could / would work

What could/would work? Fan representation? - there shouldn’t be. It should be an independent regulator panel. Fans are too emotive. We’d have gone bust 3 years ago had the Trust got their way - remember they wanted us booted from the league

 

[shmmeee]

What could/would work? Fan representation? - there shouldn’t be. It should be an independent regulator panel. Fans are too emotive. We’d have gone bust 3 years ago had the Trust got their way - remember they wanted us booted from the league

That’s not true is it. I know you’ve got this grudge against them, but seriously? To claim fans don’t need representation on the future of their clubs? Couldn’t disagree more.

 

[SlowerThanPlatt]

Mmmmm interesting

It certainly is Pete. Mr Ellis comes across as a cunning individual

 

[rob9872]

I'm a member of Leam & Warwicks supporters, Nuneaton & Bedworth Supporters, Sky Blue Trust and this forum. Do I get 4 votes?

Seriously though, there are some good people in all walks but also many power hungry ones each having their own agenda. I don't trust the Trust, but I see it that each want their own to be the number one. I've even seen it with the supporters groups complaining that one is treated more fairly or not than the another when the Coventry one was restarting. To a lesser extent and forgive me Pete, even here pushing that the supporters forum should be the one as that's the one that he sits on.

Everyone has an opinion on right and wrong and the only fair way (imo) is just like a Working Men's Club is responsible to it's members who pay the annual fee to be part of it, then our acid test of those who invest their money and should be the ones who have a say and each season, particularly recently with Geography or being in a lower league, those numbers have been less than we'd like, so the landscape may change but they are the ones most affected by any potential changes and that's season ticket holders. One season ticket, one vote.