SCG Meeting (9 Viewers)

Forums New posts
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
I do eat poo for breakfast - or sort of. I usually get scrambled eggs.

It may well be that I am naïve, but I am not blinded by hate or paint anyone black or white. I don't participate in witch hunts believing the accused is only innocent if she can't swim.
I am sorry - I have never learned not to have any doubts.
Click to expand...

I'm painting nothing black and white. If you knew me personally you'd know that I did the whole "there is no truth" thing as a philosophical concept and that I was brought up on the motto "Question everything, even what I'm telling you right now". However to quote Tim Minchin:

Chatter is initially bright and light hearted
But it's not long before Storm gets started:
“You can't know anything,
Knowledge is merely opinion”
She opines, over her Cabernet Sauvignon
Vis a vis
Some unhippily
Empirical comment by me

“Not a good start” I think
We're only on pre-dinner drinks
And across the room, my wife
Widens her eyes
Silently begs me, Be Nice
A matrimonial warning
Not worth ignoring
So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor.
Click to expand...

You take everything on the balance of evidence. There is never any final "proof" of anything, all opinion should be fluid in the face of the facts.

However, that doesn't mean that you never take a stance or make a decision. It means that when evidence arises you change that position.

Constantly throwing in doubt is useless and childish if it's not backed up by new evidence.

I believe in climate change, evolution, and gravity because I've seen the evidence and it is strong. That doesn't mean I wouldn't change my views if new compelling evidence appeared.

I've followed this saga closely, I've had more intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Trust than most thanks to my family links (though admittedly not complete knowledge), I've also studied the history of those on Sisu's side quite closely, both before CCFC and whilst at it. And my current position stands that the Trust are a collection of commited, good hearted, passionate Cov fans. With a variety of views and personalities. Sisu are your stereotypical "banker type" to put a label on it. They care about money and nothing else. They have no morals. They have no sense of community. They have previously shown they are willing to lie to get what they want (see Joy's judge's decision).

I'm 100% confidentin my current position* exactly because I'm not blinded by hatred (I do hate Fisher and Labovitch for separate reasons, but am adult enough to be able to put that to one side). I come to my position through experience, research and logical thought like any other.

And to be perfectly honest, I come on here in the vain hope that someone, anyone, will throw up some information that challenges that world view. A coherent argument or logical reason. However I don't get that. I get either personal insults or gibberish (Grendel, ccfc4life) or honest but naive "Oh, but we can't know everything" (most of the rest).

I've gone to forums and meetings and emailed the relevant parties and challenged people on here all in the desperate hope that there is something I missed because you know what: I don't actually want to be right. I don't want our club owned by a bunch of scumbags that will harm it and the people and city I love in the name of profit and profit alone.

I want to believe that a new stadium will solve our financial (and therefore football) woes.

I want to believe that Sisu are desperate to return to the Ricoh and maybe this latest guy at ACL/CCC/wherever will be the one to let them come running back.

I want to believe that Joy desperately wants to see a successful CCFC on the pitch and is in it for the long haul.

But I don't, and my upbringing as a skeptic won't allow me to.

So I'm sorry, but don't come at me with "not having any doubts" as some kind of moral high ground. Doubt is not a measure of virtue, simply a measure of the quality of evidence.

*Note: my position is "the evidence points to this as the most likely answer" NOT "this is the answer".
 
Last edited:
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Just read these notes for the first time

ML is not as daft as some make out

Look at the way the dynamics of the meeting changed after the little attack I have a feeling it was going to be a far tougher meeting for him until that attack.

Is anybody on here a attendee of these meetings other than king harvest?
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
shmmeee said:
Steve and Jan have been a bit naive IMO trying to cosy up to the club. They were never going to be treated properly and may as well have followed the feeling of the vast majority of the Trust members and been clear that as representatives of the fans they don't agree with what's happening.
Click to expand...

Disagree entirely with this.

For a start, what makes the club look worse, whether consciously or not? People butting heads... or people trying to make peaceful overtures and encountering a cuntish response?

Also not sure it's 'cosying up' to try and keep lines of dialogue open.
 
L

lamtara2006

Member
It seems from my reading of the SCG Minutes that Sisu are taking a 'You're either with us or against us' line and seeking to discredit any group that isn't on their side. While I respect the impartiality approach taken by the Trust Board over the past 6 months, the problem with a middle of the road position is that there is a risk of getting run over. Maybe time to reconsider?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
Disagree entirely with this.

For a start, what makes the club look worse, whether consciously or not? People butting heads... or people trying to make peaceful overtures and encountering a cuntish response?

Also not sure it's 'cosying up' to try and keep lines of dialogue open.
Click to expand...

You have a point. But is that what's happened, or has the repute of the Trust been questioned? The Council have played Sisu correctly IMO, not aggressive, but not meeting silly demands or being overly deferential. The fans of this club should have the right to tell the owners that they are not doing a good job and not be afraid that they will undergo a concerted effort to discredit them publicly. Respect is a two way street.

And yeah, my choice of words was poor, accepted.
 
Last edited:
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Because almost every company has a PR company. Including Sisu, CCFC, Paul Appleton, etc.

Are you suggesting all of those have been up to funny tricks too?

You hire a PR firm when you have lots of journalists calling up the office and you don't want to waste your time not doing your primary job.
Click to expand...

Most big companies have a PR department actually. Small companies would employ a self employed pr person who would probably be an ex journalist who charges a fairly modest fee.

Most normal PR would be issuing statements and press releases to media contacts to get them placed.

There is no way in a million years ACL would employ an organisation like WS to do that as their hourly rate would be significantly higher than the purpose it would serve.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
shmmeee said:
You have a point. But is that what's happened, or has the repute of the Trust been questioned?
Click to expand...

I genuinely think the Trust come out of this looking far, far better than before.

For a start, they need to keep lines of dialogue open. As someone (wise? ;) ) mentioned on another forum, the IRA needed Sinn Fein and it is the same principle, somebody needs to do the negotiation.

As also mentioned on this thread, the Haskell episode did look... dubious. The ranty, shouty trust desperate to, well, cosy up to the failures of the past would alienate some fans too. That approach also allows for a certain empathy with SISU.

As it stands, however, the approach taken gives SISU the rope to either secure the ship in port... or hang themselves. Want to play a battle, the current approach shows more success with a Gandhi-esque result. It also, incidentally, makes the Trust look more professional than previously, and that improves their standing. Who would you want with influence over your club? The rambling incoherant ramblings of an angry maniac that reads like a drunkard... or the balanced approach that shows willingness to look at all sides, and openness to a view being changed before arriving at a decision? I'd take the latter every time. It's why if SISU were to be open to dialogue with a major fans' group, that should be welcomed too. The fact they're not... lessens their grip.

As Andreas said, even if people have concerns about their approach, past or present, it's pretty undeniable that the Trust represents a body of fans, of many different churches, so absolutely should have representation where the club reaches out.

What, ultimately, sways public opinion? The ranty shouting with no message, or the articulate reasoned response that's met with, well... ranty shouting from the club in return? I'd go for the latter every time, especially as the latter doesn't have to mean events stop completely; as has been said time and time again, a message of the club should be in the right city can get the most behind it... that message also doesn't close dialogue with the club, or take sides.

As long as the Trust stay reasonable, polite, engage in such things as the SCG then if the result is as these minutes, it achieves the effect of a groundswell of opinion against the club.

My hope is that Steve keeps going to these meetings, keeps his present approach... as by doing so he does more damage to SISU than anything all-out war would achieve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
I'm painting nothing black and white. If you knew me personally you'd know that I did the whole "there is no truth" thing as a philosophical concept and that I was brought up on the motto "Question everything, even what I'm telling you right now". However to quote Tim Minchin:
.................
Click to expand...

All very interesting, only I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about me.
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
duffer said:
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, having read those minutes.

ML sounds like an arse of the highest order. Is the SCG there to inform fans what's going on, or is it there to bully the Trust and accuse them of some kind of criminal activity?

Interesting enough, Labovitch might want to be careful. This accusation of conspiracy to damage the reputation of a business would seem to be precisely what he, Mr Fisher and Ms Seppala are doing with regard to ACL (and possibly Weber Shandwick - was ML really suggesting that a PR company would stir up a mob at a fan's forum?! Utterly bizarre.).

As for ML's 'myths around Ricoh valuation'. Again, either the man's a rude oaf or is deliberately clouding the issue. He makes no differentiation between ACL (an entirely separate business in law from the Council), the encumbered freehold, the unencumbered freehold, or a long leasehold. Each of those has it's own issues, of course, and it's hard not to see this constant muddying of the water by ML as anything other than a deliberate ploy to draw focus away from SISU's obvious strategy of breaking ACL.

Last but not least. "ML says that their legal advice has always been that telling the truth cannot prejudice any legal proceedings". What the hell would this man know about telling the truth. When he's caught out he claims to have been misquoted. They want the truth so much that they tear down notices at Sixfields urging fans to sign the petition for an independent enquiry.

Fisher and Labovitch: 'Plans in three weeks', 'Advanced discussions with council', 'There is no debt', 'Gentlemen, we have a deal'. All lies. Shame on them.
Click to expand...

It might interest you to note any reference of Mr Labovitch claiming to have been "misquoted" has disappeared from the minutes of the last SCG meeting on the club's website.

http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/scg-minutes-january-meeting-190114-1373590.aspx



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
S

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
lamtara2006 said:
It seems from my reading of the SCG Minutes that Sisu are taking a 'You're either with us or against us' line and seeking to discredit any group that isn't on their side. While I respect the impartiality approach taken by the Trust Board over the past 6 months, the problem with a middle of the road position is that there is a risk of getting run over. Maybe time to reconsider?
Click to expand...

Good post, can assure you we reconsider our stance almost every day.
 
S

Steve.B50

Well-Known Member
Deleted member 5849 said:
I genuinely think the Trust come out of this looking far, far better than before.

For a start, they need to keep lines of dialogue open. As someone (wise? ;) ) mentioned on another forum, the IRA needed Sinn Fein and it is the same principle, somebody needs to do the negotiation.

As also mentioned on this thread, the Haskell episode did look... dubious. The ranty, shouty trust desperate to, well, cosy up to the failures of the past would alienate some fans too. That approach also allows for a certain empathy with SISU.

As it stands, however, the approach taken gives SISU the rope to either secure the ship in port... or hang themselves. Want to play a battle, the current approach shows more success with a Gandhi-esque result. It also, incidentally, makes the Trust look more professional than previously, and that improves their standing. Who would you want with influence over your club? The rambling incoherant ramblings of an angry maniac that reads like a drunkard... or the balanced approach that shows willingness to look at all sides, and openness to a view being changed before arriving at a decision? I'd take the latter every time. It's why if SISU were to be open to dialogue with a major fans' group, that should be welcomed too. The fact they're not... lessens their grip.

As Andreas said, even if people have concerns about their approach, past or present, it's pretty undeniable that the Trust represents a body of fans, of many different churches, so absolutely should have representation where the club reaches out.

What, ultimately, sways public opinion? The ranty shouting with no message, or the articulate reasoned response that's met with, well... ranty shouting from the club in return? I'd go for the latter every time, especially as the latter doesn't have to mean events stop completely; as has been said time and time again, a message of the club should be in the right city can get the most behind it... that message also doesn't close dialogue with the club, or take sides.

As long as the Trust stay reasonable, polite, engage in such things as the SCG then if the result is as these minutes, it achieves the effect of a groundswell of opinion against the club.

My hope is that Steve keeps going to these meetings, keeps his present approach... as by doing so he does more damage to SISU than anything all-out war would achieve.
Click to expand...

As difficult as it is, its my intention to bite my tongue at times and continue the correct and fair approach, regardless of some of the abuse I may get from a small minority.
 
Nick

Nick

Administrator
Deleted member 5849 said:
I genuinely think the Trust come out of this looking far, far better than before.

For a start, they need to keep lines of dialogue open. As someone (wise? ;) ) mentioned on another forum, the IRA needed Sinn Fein and it is the same principle, somebody needs to do the negotiation.

As also mentioned on this thread, the Haskell episode did look... dubious. The ranty, shouty trust desperate to, well, cosy up to the failures of the past would alienate some fans too. That approach also allows for a certain empathy with SISU.

As it stands, however, the approach taken gives SISU the rope to either secure the ship in port... or hang themselves. Want to play a battle, the current approach shows more success with a Gandhi-esque result. It also, incidentally, makes the Trust look more professional than previously, and that improves their standing. Who would you want with influence over your club? The rambling incoherant ramblings of an angry maniac that reads like a drunkard... or the balanced approach that shows willingness to look at all sides, and openness to a view being changed before arriving at a decision? I'd take the latter every time. It's why if SISU were to be open to dialogue with a major fans' group, that should be welcomed too. The fact they're not... lessens their grip.

As Andreas said, even if people have concerns about their approach, past or present, it's pretty undeniable that the Trust represents a body of fans, of many different churches, so absolutely should have representation where the club reaches out.

What, ultimately, sways public opinion? The ranty shouting with no message, or the articulate reasoned response that's met with, well... ranty shouting from the club in return? I'd go for the latter every time, especially as the latter doesn't have to mean events stop completely; as has been said time and time again, a message of the club should be in the right city can get the most behind it... that message also doesn't close dialogue with the club, or take sides.

As long as the Trust stay reasonable, polite, engage in such things as the SCG then if the result is as these minutes, it achieves the effect of a groundswell of opinion against the club.

My hope is that Steve keeps going to these meetings, keeps his present approach... as by doing so he does more damage to SISU than anything all-out war would achieve.
Click to expand...

I agree, when they refuse to speak to the club it looks bad but by putting their "personal" opinions to the side and acting professional it will only make the club look bad!! Steve may well want to shout SISU out and strangle Fisher but by keeping it "balanced" it works better I think.
 
L

lamtara2006

Member
Steve.B50 said:
Good post, can assure you we reconsider our stance almost every day.
Click to expand...

Should make for an interesting discussion on Monday. BTW I think that The Trust can be open to dialogue and at the same time be openly critical of any/all parties. Sinn Fein is the example frequently used: Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness weren't exactly conciliatory in their public statements, even during the period leading up to the Good Friday Agreement.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
I agree, when they refuse to speak to the club it looks bad but by putting their "personal" opinions to the side and acting professional it will only make the club look bad!! Steve may well want to shout SISU out and strangle Fisher but by keeping it "balanced" it works better I think.
Click to expand...

Although in fairness if Steve did jump across the table and strangle Fisher whilst shouting "SISU out", and then posted it up to YouTube alongside a message saying "I'm glad I did it", I still don't think there's a court in Coventry that would convict him. ;)

(I'm kidding btw, in case you hadn't guessed. Violence solves nothing, and Steve's doing exactly the right thing, imho. He's clearly the bigger man here - how embarassing for Labovitch.)
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Interesting note on the new group in the latest SBT newsletter

As many of you will be aware Ms Sandra Garlick has formed an independent committee to look at what supporters might want if a new stadium was to be built. We asked you if you felt the SBT should be part of this committee and the overwhelming majority voted for participation. We informed Ms Garlick that the near on 3,000 members of the Trust wished to be represented on
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
R

RoboCCFC90

Well-Known Member
Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Note to myself must try to remember who I'm posting as.
Click to expand...

If you can't tell when your logged on the top right hand side then your not paying enough attention and are doomed :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
lamtara2006 said:
Should make for an interesting discussion on Monday. BTW I think that The Trust can be open to dialogue and at the same time be openly critical of any/all parties. Sinn Fein is the example frequently used: Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness weren't exactly conciliatory in their public statements, even during the period leading up to the Good Friday Agreement.
Click to expand...

I have to say that is probably the strangest analogy I have ever seen. I am against capital punishment but I see its benefits -- no Mr McGuiness or Mr Adams for a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top