Sky Blues Trust - What Does it Stand For? (5 Viewers)

[dongonzalos]

All I can say is thank god Ray went and we got Ken.

 

---

[lordsummerisle]

All I can say is thank god Ray went and we got Ken.

He did a good job of continuing Rays plan of relegation, at least he accelerated it to lessen the pain(and cost).

 

[dongonzalos]

He did a good job of continuing Rays plan of relegation, at least he accelerated it to lessen the pain(and cost).

We were going to be relegated signing young talent from lower leagues.

I think you can attribute relegation solely to SISU and Ken's philosophy and sell release and don't replace.

If we can't afford to buy young talent and sell them on.

I appreciate contracts were not given out so the selling on aspect was missed for gunner and Westwood.

I wonder what we will do if we get into the championship next season.

How do you then attempt to get into the prem ?

 

[CJparker]

No need to be so aggressive is there? He was just asking a question about it, why would he have to go to a meeting to find out? Surely that just makes it look a bit cliquey that if you don't go you can't know anything. Like that secret London meeting that time.

I can't believe you still have a chip on your shoulder about this a full 12 months later!!!

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

Jan is speaking as an individual on here and not formally on behalf of the Trust. It's not that hard to understand is it?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

I am sure that Ken was worth his salary, first class air fares to and from his home in Portugal, his suite at Coombe Abbey and his stretch XJL, that is the Sisu way. Just as Clarke is worth his £60,000 plus expenses and Fisher his £120,000 plus expenses plus his seven figure bonus: Seppala rewards her gofers. This is not about football, just as the Sisu campaign is not about rent. It is not surprising that the people paid by Sisu to answer postings on this and other threads manage to keep the lines of argument focused on their agenda. Rubbish the Trust and big up the consultative group: what else would Sisu want? Danger in independent people with open meetings at the Squirrel, much safer with handpicked "guests" who can carry on the consultative group conversations in the Board Room on match day. How many times have the SBT been guests at Clarkes bar?
It is always easy to rubbish people who try to be honest: just throw some mud, make some accusations, pour scorn on postings and then if that fails, insult and make personal attacks: all of this has been seen on this forum, not just in this thread. I will be accused of being anti-Sisu. Okay, I can live with that. I was also anti Robinson, against his dishonesty even if pitying him for his addiction to alcohol which makes him so stupid. McGinnity: drunken joke. Richardson: thief, liar, bully the list goes on. Am I just a twisted hater of anybody who wears a suit and sits in the Directors' box? No. But in the twenty five years I have supported the Club these are the abject retards that have had control over the Club. So, anti-Sisu, yes, but only because they are also lying and cheating and bullying and self serving. Their interest is not in the Club or the community (a couple of buses to Weymouth for the Olympic sailing and a family day at the Higgs are NOT community involvement) they are only interested in a return to their investors across the world. The only way they can do that is to sell the Club and Stadium, and that is their problem.
I for one support the SBT. I do it not because I agree with everyone in it, or with everything it does but because it is the only hope for any chance of a collective voice, a gathering of fans together, to take the owners (or in this case their gofers) to task. We have had our shares taken by Sisu, we can't challenge at AGMs. The SBT is the only thing we have at the moment. It is up to us either to join and help to shape that voice or to let it go. There is of course the way of some on this forum: stand outside and only contribute destructive criticism and personal attack. If they are not paid and not trolls what else do they get off on?

 

[torchomatic]

No, it's not hard to understand; he says one thing with his meetings to Fisher and then another when he's on here. Why should Fisher take him and the SBT seriously if that's what he does?

Jan is speaking as an individual on here and not formally on behalf of the Trust. It's not that hard to understand is it?

 

[GaryPendrysEyes]

No, it's not hard to understand; he says one thing with his meetings to Fisher and then another when he's on here. Why should Fisher take him and the SBT seriously if that's what he does?

err he is representing the Trust when he is with Fisher.. are you simple?

 

[torchomatic]

Again, you fail to see the point. Jan's comments on here show he's anything but balanced in his opinion. Again, I have no problem with Jan having his views, but how can he supposedly represent an impartial Trust when he is anything but. He says "we are all working towards a common goal - a successful ccfc" yet does not want the Club's owners to get their "grubby hands" on the Ricoh. How is that working towards a successful Coventry City?

Torch - you haven't replied to Dongonzalos's substantive point i.e. he sees Jan as having a very sensible, balanced opinion. Your opinion is different to someone like Dongonzalos and everyone else will form their own view. I can't see the basis for your criticism being well founded - it's just your opinion. Jan is the Trust's spokesman and the coverage he gets reflects the great job he is doing.

 

[dongonzalos]

Maybe when he said that the majority of the fans felt the same.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Torch - I'm off to the pub now. I'm not sure how to reply to your most recent posts, and Grendel's too, without repeating what was said earlier. I would just reiterate that there is a Trust meeting on Monday where there will be an excellent guest speaker and plenty of time for discussion so why not come along? If you can't make Monday then I am always happy spending an evening talking about CCFC especially when mixed with beer. Cheers and PUSB!

 

[Paxman II]

It's all a matter of opinions. The 'trust' is is a valliant attempt at having representation for the supporters and for that I applaud your efforts while at the same time as with say a local councillors voted in who have no commercial business acumen and are hardly placed to make comment on how or why a business actually operates the way it does.
I for one would not welcome otside interference in my business interest from such a group. The best way forward is to grow the membership enormously and only then will people listen. Though even then your best hope is merely to have a small amount of influence.

 

[Grendel]

err he is representing the Trust when he is with Fisher.. are you simple?

Oh ok so when not representing the trust he says what he wants. So as a senior manager of a major motor manufacturer I could say on piston heads "don't buy our cars they are rubbish" and not expect a conversation in the morning.

George Osborne could twitter "personally I think all working class people should give up their cars to save money and stop moaning" and not expect any comeback.

Remind me - who is simple?

 

[Grendel]

Maybe when he said that the majority of the fans felt the same.

The majority of fans just go every game and couldn't give a stuff. How can you or anyone else assume what the majority want.

 

[torchomatic]

Obviously, because I have a problem with him speaking to Fisher proposing to work with him and the club and then coming on here and slagging him off.

err he is representing the Trust when he is with Fisher.. are you simple?

 

[Grendel]

Torch - I'm off to the pub now. I'm not sure how to reply to your most recent posts, and Grendel's too, without repeating what was said earlier. I would just reiterate that there is a Trust meeting on Monday where there will be an excellent guest speaker and plenty of time for discussion so why not come along? If you can't make Monday then I am always happy spending an evening talking about CCFC especially when mixed with beer. Cheers and PUSB!

Problem is I don't understand the agenda.

The type of speakers you have (Portsmouth trust for example) must be based on a belief the owners will take us into oblivion. This may be true but ultimately a minority group of people with no influence cannot change that either way.

I think the trust should be working with the club on a number if key issues.

Lets take the rent argument. It has to be in the football clubs best interests that the rent is the lowest it can be. The trust can have no interest in outside influences such as ACL as they are a totally independent organisation.

So perhaps on the speaker list you should have other council backed clubs speak such as Doncaster, Hull, Ipswich? Brighton and most interestingly of all stoke. See what their experienced are and ultimately how they overcame such issues.

After all the Sky Blue Trust must want only what's best for the club and surely if we pay £1 a year rent that suits all fans of the Sky Blues.

Strangely I don't think that will be happening.
M

 

[wingy]

I am sure that Ken was worth his salary, first class air fares to and from his home in Portugal, his suite at Coombe Abbey and his stretch XJL, that is the Sisu way. Just as Clarke is worth his £60,000 plus expenses and Fisher his £120,000 plus expenses plus his seven figure bonus: Seppala rewards her gofers. This is not about football, just as the Sisu campaign is not about rent. It is not surprising that the people paid by Sisu to answer postings on this and other threads manage to keep the lines of argument focused on their agenda. Rubbish the Trust and big up the consultative group: what else would Sisu want? Danger in independent people with open meetings at the Squirrel, much safer with handpicked "guests" who can carry on the consultative group conversations in the Board Room on match day. How many times have the SBT been guests at Clarkes bar?
It is always easy to rubbish people who try to be honest: just throw some mud, make some accusations, pour scorn on postings and then if that fails, insult and make personal attacks: all of this has been seen on this forum, not just in this thread. I will be accused of being anti-Sisu. Okay, I can live with that. I was also anti Robinson, against his dishonesty even if pitying him for his addiction to alcohol which makes him so stupid. McGinnity: drunken joke. Richardson: thief, liar, bully the list goes on. Am I just a twisted hater of anybody who wears a suit and sits in the Directors' box? No. But in the twenty five years I have supported the Club these are the abject retards that have had control over the Club. So, anti-Sisu, yes, but only because they are also lying and cheating and bullying and self serving. Their interest is not in the Club or the community (a couple of buses to Weymouth for the Olympic sailing and a family day at the Higgs are NOT community involvement) they are only interested in a return to their investors across the world. The only way they can do that is to sell the Club and Stadium, and that is their problem.
I for one support the SBT. I do it not because I agree with everyone in it, or with everything it does but because it is the only hope for any chance of a collective voice, a gathering of fans together, to take the owners (or in this case their gofers) to task. We have had our shares taken by Sisu, we can't challenge at AGMs. The SBT is the only thing we have at the moment. It is up to us either to join and help to shape that voice or to let it go. There is of course the way of some on this forum: stand outside and only contribute destructive criticism and personal attack. If they are not paid and not trolls what else do they get off on?

They'll be kissing Babies for media shots next WSCP,by the way you missed out that Mark Labovitch fella,more bucks ! !He'd need a few sheckles if

he's worked in Tony Blairs realm,wonder what his role is ,HMM Strategy perhaps?

I think the thread originator knows exactly what the trust stands for ,after all its on the website and the recruitment of 700-800 new members

occured while all these present uncertainties were unfolding. The playground attempt of another thread to attempt the alienisation of anyone who

shows a level of scepticism beyond ," tough shit anything goes ","its business,there ain't room for two at this party ETC", is the equivilent of" its my

ball ,you can't play", you know the Ginger kid in the playground with Freckles and glasses .Its a very old technique been around for centuries ,keeps

everything and everyone nicely regimented "if you're not in you're out",the most extreme example i can think of from recent history was that German

fella.Now of course i'n not suggesting theres anything as crude going on here ,its only a bloody Football club after all ,but its our Club ,yes all of ours

even us sceptics , but It does'nt neccessitate the Labotomy approach. I can hear the DALEKS saying it now"I Must Obey I Must Obey".To be a fan is

not to be conscripted,tis a Religion,and the parishoners are dropping off at an alarming rate .

I'm affraid this relegation is a test of commitment for all concerned ,brought about by a total lack of commitment starting 30 months ago ,but utterly

and abjectly abandoned 18 months back,that was the moment the pistol was pointed at our clubs head in this game of poker,the barrel is loaded ,the

finger is on the trigger,time to sort it out ,Would either of them object to arbitration ?Now that would be revealing .

 

[dongonzalos]

The majority of fans just go every game and couldn't give a stuff. How can you or anyone else assume what the majority want.

I disagree, last season most fans would not have liked SISU getting the stadium.

This season a little bit of success and many a fickle fan will mellow on that few.

 

[torchomatic]

And I disagree. Most fans care what is happening on the pitch not off. They want a successful team and goals. Nothing to do with fickle fans.

I disagree, last season most fans would not have liked SISU getting the stadium.

This season a little bit of success and many a fickle fan will mellow on that few.

 

[oldskyblue58]

personally i welcome that there is a group of people that give a great deal of their own time to try to better represent the interests of the fans even if it is only the ones in their membership. Do they represent all fans no - they do not actually claim to - but it is a stronger voice than the sole voices represented here. Nor are they without skills or knowledge.

Is it easy to walk a neutral path between the conflicting interests - no. It will always be seen as bias if they say something as a body that doesn't quite fit in with someone's personal opinion. BUT at least they are trying to do something. If you think they should go a different way get involved, argue your case and change it.

There is a polarisation of opinions - you are either pro SISU or anti ...... if you criticise something at the club you are not a fan and against it ............ if you say anything in support of ACL you are a non fan that doesn't want the best for the club. Oh i wish life, this whole situation were that simple that the issues were so black and white. It is only opinions ! The whole reason any of us post here is that we want the best for the club - how that is achieved is a matter of opinion and not surprisingly differ. I fail to see the need for personal attacks.

shock someone involved in an organisation has a personal opinion that differs from the official one. Ashbyjan has been consistent in his views, go check his posts before SBTrust resurrected or before SOC kicked off. This shouldn't be news to anyone. However when being interviewed on behalf of the trust he has always tried hard to promote the SBTrust view and its neutral stance. The leader of the SCG put out a statement that was firmly supportive of SISU that was his personal view when you might expect him to represent the fans who in my opinion are not so supportive - it is the same thing. TF deals with all the parties involved but that didnt stop him berating all and sundry at ACL etc. Ashbyjan is entitled to his personal opinion as is everyone else.

Is the Trust a good thing - yes at least they are doing something, at least they get to talk with all involved, Do they have a significant effect at the moment - not at the moment but would you expect them to influence rent negotiations between the parties ...... really ? They want fans involvement - a reasonable aim if you ask me....... far better that fans are represented at the heart of the club than standing outside looking in. Will it ever represent all fans - no but we have always known that.

I hope the SBTrust continues to grow

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Problem is I don't understand the agenda.

The type of speakers you have (Portsmouth trust for example) must be based on a belief the owners will take us into oblivion. This may be true but ultimately a minority group of people with no influence cannot change that either way.

I think the trust should be working with the club on a number if key issues.

Lets take the rent argument. It has to be in the football clubs best interests that the rent is the lowest it can be. The trust can have no interest in outside influences such as ACL as they are a totally independent organisation.

So perhaps on the speaker list you should have other council backed clubs speak such as Doncaster, Hull, Ipswich? Brighton and most interestingly of all stoke. See what their experienced are and ultimately how they overcame such issues.

After all the Sky Blue Trust must want only what's best for the club and surely if we pay £1 a year rent that suits all fans of the Sky Blues.

Strangely I don't think that will be happening.
M

Speakers at meetings have been people who have something of interest to say and from who things can be learnt. Being a democratic organisation other people would have to agree with this for it to happen, but in my own view it would be great to have a speaker from the club, or even just someone such as yourself wanting to put across a specific argument.

I'm sure everyone involved with the Trust would support working with the club even more on key issues - if people are saying there are ccfc/sisu people posting on here then just reply!

On the rent issue, I think you are perhaps simplifying things a bit. It seems to me everyone is agreeing the current rent is too high but I don't get much sense that many people think ccfc should only pay £1. Dismissing ACL out of hand ignores the reality of the situation, and there are lots of non ccfc supporting council tax payers in coventry who take a very different position to you. Any solution needs to take a more hoslistic view than you appear to be suggesting. I'm concerned by the view that seems to be growing that this isn't about the rent at all but sisu wanting to distress acl. A statement from sisu saying exactly what rent they would settle for, a clear explanation from acl as to what their offer is, plus commitment to arbitration from both parties might help move things forward.

 

[Grendel]

Speakers at meetings have been people who have something of interest to say and from who things can be learnt. Being a democratic organisation other people would have to agree with this for it to happen, but in my own view it would be great to have a speaker from the club, or even just someone such as yourself wanting to put across a specific argument.

I'm sure everyone involved with the Trust would support working with the club even more on key issues - if people are saying there are ccfc/sisu people posting on here then just reply!

On the rent issue, I think you are perhaps simplifying things a bit. It seems to me everyone is agreeing the current rent is too high but I don't get much sense that many people think ccfc should only pay £1. Dismissing ACL out of hand ignores the reality of the situation, and there are lots of non ccfc supporting council tax payers in coventry who take a very different position to you. Any solution needs to take a more hoslistic view than you appear to be suggesting. I'm concerned by the view that seems to be growing that this isn't about the rent at all but sisu wanting to distress acl. A statement from sisu saying exactly what rent they would settle for, a clear explanation from acl as to what their offer is, plus commitment to arbitration from both parties might help move things forward.

Fair response. I was only saying £1 to exaggerate the argument.

I guess my main confusion is what it's real objectives are. I would have thought it should have some short medium and long term goals to try and achieve.

Short term I really refer to day to day issued that effect the supporters and should be aimed at revenue generation. Even minor things like why are their never any programmes to purchase, lack of club shop merchandise could be collared and fed back to the club. Other more strategic issues also - trying to offer cheaper on site parking as a package with season tickets, looking at why supporters don't attend and how the be encouraged to attend.

Medium term are issues such as the rent and I think both sides of the argument should be explored and discussed. This should be balanced though and I don't see the clubs argument being considered at all.

Constant and supportive dialogue should engage the club better with the trust and enable the long term mission to be accomplished which in my view should be something akin to the Swansea model.

That would be a quick summation of my vision what it should crudely be. I don't get the feeling that's what it is though. It seems more fragmented than that and more of a anti ownership body

This may be unfair but I can only observe from what I see - on here, the website and membership form. It all looks a bit muddled.

 

[torchomatic]

I have absolutely no problem with the Trust orwith Jan and his personal views or the views of anyone on here. Honestly, I can't preach my views are obviously not "balanced" as I want the Club to prosper even if that means playing hardball with ACL. However, I do have a problem when people say that the Trust is impartial with a balanced view when it patently isn't impartial.

Personally, I don't care if they are pro or anti SISU or ACL, they can take whatever stance they wish but be honest about it. Surely, a spokesman cannot represent the Trust when talking to the Club saying they want what's best when they then come on here and say the opposite. It shows a lack of professionalism for what the Trust is trying to achieve - which is something else I'm not sure of. The club are not going to take the Trust seriously if they are saying one thing to their faces but another behind their backs.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

In response to Torch and Grendel...

Grendel - interesting post. I think what you outline is pretty much where the Trust is trying to get to. But again, let's be realistic about this. All work for the Trust is done on a voluntary basis and being democratic means working things through. A polished set of goals, business plan etc takes time (ACL haven't made a profit net of rent in 7 years and under SISU we have ended up in third tier football - if it takes time for them to get it right then maybe cut the Trust a bit of slack!)

Torch - you refer to being honest and that's a really important point. The Trust is open and transparent. Minutes of meetings are on the Trust website, you can see who is on the Trust Board, membership is open to all. Calling for such transparency by ACL and SISU might be more productive in moving things forward.

And finally, both of you seem to assert repeatedly that the Trust is anti-sisu. This is simply not true. But I adhere to the adage that you learn more by talking to people who disagree with you than with people who just agree so, as I've said previously, you would be very welcome to come to the Trust meeting this Monday, if you would like to be a guest speaker let me know or I'm always more than happy to talk about ccfc over a pint.