Sky Blues Trust - Open Letter (7 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

You're not going to like it, but in mind opinion having the fans trust leaning slightly more towards the clubs owners than the stadium management company is better for the club long term. Club owner and fans reps need to work together. If the trust adopt a more pragmatic stance I can only applaud it.

That's all very nice, but doesn't really answer my point.

The club were the ones to stop working with the fan's reps to be fair, so yes it would be nice to see them return. Now, the vast majority of fans would quite like CCFC back in Coventry, how about that as a starting point?

Answer the question: how does this help? How are we any further along than we were before? Why would the Trust taking up GCBTTR's mantle help us get back?

I'm all ears.

Look, it's obvious ACL don't want to just give Sisu what they want, or we'd be home by now.

The Trust should be on the side of the fans, who only care about the fact their club is out of the city, not how much cash Joy wants today or the finances of a stadium management company.

This is a statement of what the owners want, what about the fans?

I've said all along, the Trust should have a very clear message that we want the club back in Coventry, not get involved in a very messy dispute by picking sides. This letter adds more obstacles to a short term deal, as such it is detrimental to us seeing CCFC back sooner.

A good letter would say much the same, but not put the entire argument back to square one by calling for matchday revenues THE ENTIRE STICKING POINT FOR THE LAST 18 MONTHS FFS!

Am I alone here? Did we suddenly accept it was OK to sit in Northampton while the suits play Monopoly? I thought we, as fans, wanted the club back ASAP, and as such favoured a short term rental deal while the details are sorted. Now that's out the window?

 

---

[Godiva]

That's all very nice, but doesn't really answer my point.

The club were the ones to stop working with the fan's reps to be fair, so yes it would be nice to see them return. Now, the vast majority of fans would quite like CCFC back in Coventry, how about that as a starting point?

Answer the question: how does this help? How are we any further along than we were before? Why would the Trust taking up GCBTTR's mantle help us get back?

I'm all ears.

Were the club the ones to stop working with the trust? If I remember correctly the trust was born out of two versions of SOC ... Sisu-out-campaign and Save-out-city. Their first manifest was all about working with the club, but it never materialised and it has changed a few times to what it is now. In my recollection the trust was always anti-sisu - because the more vocal and active members were anti-sisu.

But if the trust now takes a more pragmatic stance and actually do what everyone says sisu and ACL should do: Leave the past behind and move forward, then I can start believe in less division and more collaboration.

The current situation where fans are siding with the stadium management company against the club is ridiculous and will never lead to any good.

Have the club and fans work in unity and the politicians and public servants who part owns and run the stadium will become much more likely to accept the club back and work for a long term solution where ACL become a member of the SBS&L group.

Before replying, please read the words in bold.

 

[Ms_whiplash]

Interesting comment that the trust have to maintain contact and communication!! Why? What has it achieved so far?? Absolutely nothing! I know people who speak to Fisher regularly and those who have met him and Seppala face to face. They may come across as sympathetic and understanding and make the right noises........but what has it achieved? Nothing. I say the Trust need to make a stand and say no more to sitting on the fence. The Trust need to start fighting for what they believe in and stop trying to be impartial.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

You think the battle's nearly over?

In one sense yes. I do think that the course of the final outcome has been established. But the battle for what is right, no. I fear that the final outcome is not what most of us on here would wish for. I also believe that this final outcome has been predicated by those institutions that failed to stand up for what is right. In that I include the CT and the FL.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Interesting comment that the trust have to maintain contact and communication!! Why? What has it achieved so far?? Absolutely nothing! I know people who speak to Fisher regularly and those who have met him and Seppala face to face. They may come across as sympathetic and understanding and make the right noises........but what has it achieved? Nothing. I say the Trust need to make a stand and say no more to sitting on the fence. The Trust need to start fighting for what they believe in and stop trying to be impartial.

You're right,I've met both of them what have I got out of it? Fuck all,begged and I mean begged them to bring the club back,to talk to the trust and get them to broker a deal or at least talks others have done the same.Why is it always the fans that have to be level headed,to be impartial etc etc etc,when they are the ones that have suffered the most and have the most to lose,and have lost the most? Of course we have to remain impartial while they're shitting on us its all fucking bollocks.

 

[skybluefred]

So now the fickle turn on the SBT. You couldn't make it up.

That's not the fickle that's the true Sky Blue fan's--never forget it.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

So now the fickle turn on the SBT. You couldn't make it up.

I do not see any comments suggesting that many have turned on the SBT. But many are expressing a view. From my understanding that is exactly what the SBT want. Sky Blues fans making it clear what they see as the way forward. They in turn do a bloody good job of representing the bulk of the fans. I think your suggestion can only cause people to stay quite, at a time when we need to hear more from them. I have a view as do most on this forum. Whilst I may disagree with some, I am happy to hear their view and if it makes sense, moderate mine to take account. I would implore you not to knock the fans that speak out, have a dig at those that do not.

 

[Ian1779]

I do not see any comments suggesting that many have turned on the SBT. But many are expressing a view. From my understanding that is exactly what the SBT want. Sky Blues fans making it clear what they see as the way forward. They in turn do a bloody good job of representing the bulk of the fans. I think your suggestion can only cause people to stay quite, at a time when we need to hear more from them. I have a view as do most on this forum. Whilst I may disagree with some, I am happy to hear their view and if it makes sense, moderate mine to take account. I would implore you not to knock the fans that speak out, have a dig at those that do not.

When I read some of those comments on the CET page I think 'you actually care more about hating SISU than CCFC returning back to Coventry'

Personally I have not been particularly enthused by the SBT in the past, but their letter is exactly what was needed - it was pertinent and relevant to the future of CCFC.
So credit where credit is due. I wasn't having a pop at the SBT, just some of the ridiculous comment on the bottom of that CET article.

The way some of these comments are developing about the SBT show a very similar pattern to what happened with Les Reid....

 

[shmmeee]

Were the club the ones to stop working with the trust? If I remember correctly the trust was born out of two versions of SOC ... Sisu-out-campaign and Save-out-city. Their first manifest was all about working with the club, but it never materialised and it has changed a few times to what it is now. In my recollection the trust was always anti-sisu - because the more vocal and active members were anti-sisu.

But if the trust now takes a more pragmatic stance and actually do what everyone says sisu and ACL should do: Leave the past behind and move forward, then I can start believe in less division and more collaboration.

The current situation where fans are siding with the stadium management company against the club is ridiculous and will never lead to any good.

Have the club and fans work in unity and the politicians and public servants who part owns and run the stadium will become much more likely to accept the club back and work for a long term solution where ACL become a member of the SBS&L group.

Before replying, please read the words in bold.

Again, lovely stuff, but not actually relevant to the situation at hand.

I'll ask again. how does restating Sisu's position move us forward? We know ACL have an issue with providing the revenues Sisu want THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN NORTHAMPTON. Putting it as a precondition to any return home is just throwing a short term solution out of the window.

This is nothing to do with leaving the past behind, no matter how much that would suit you and Sisu to forget all the crap that's gone before and treat them like completely trustworthy individuals with no hidden agenda at all. Even if we do that, we're back to square one. Square one of: CCFC want revenues ACL can't or won't give.

How is that moving us forward? How?

Read the entire thing and post actual opinions, not just apple pie bullshit about everyone pulling together.

I'll put it in a simple question you can answer:

Why should the fans want to put any preconditions on a short term return?

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

When I read some of those comments on the CET page I think 'you actually care more about hating SISU than CCFC returning back to Coventry'

Personally I have not been particularly enthused by the SBT in the past, but their letter is exactly what was needed - it was pertinent and relevant to the future of CCFC.
So credit where credit is due. I wasn't having a pop at the SBT, just some of the ridiculous comment on the bottom of that CET article.

The way some of these comments are developing about the SBT show a very similar pattern to what happened with Les Reid....

Ian, I never really followed Les Reid and have even less understanding of his departure or the reasons behind it. I am sure you are correct in that some allow the hatred that has developed for SISU to narrow the options they see going forward. However, the evidence currently available suggests that they have good reason to promote a sense of distrust. I certainly would not ever want to deal with them, I just could not trust that they have honor or dignity. The majority on the CT page are simply expressing that fact. Can or could SISU change? Could we trust them to act with honor, integrity and good will? Well unlike the judicial revue, the Jury is still out on those questions.

 

[lamtara2006]

It seems to me that the key point of this Open Letter is that, if the Bring City Home campaign is to succeed quickly, a genuine dialogue needs to occur between the parties, without pre-conditions that prevent discussions. I don't read the Letter as asking ACL to give into Sisu on their main concerns. Preferably both sides should cease making comments via media outlets and get down to direct, constructive exchanges. They will each have key demands that they will want addressed in an eventual outcome, but neither side gain if they continue Posturing rather than Communicating - and certainly the Supporters continue to lose out all the while this stand-off persists. Each party seems to be convinced that the other will fold through attrition; it may be true that one will eventually collapse but not anytime soon.

The biggest hurdle is probably Sisu's (Joy's I believe) insistence on pursuing the Appeal - that could be overcome if Sisu agree that the legal process will be dropped if agreement on all other points is reached. The easiest hurdle to overcome ought to be the Matchday Revenues - because this is a matter of sales rather than profit, it surely would be simple to let CCFC have the income and inflate the charges paid to ACL in compensation?

Regrettably, both ACL and Sisu seem intent on building barriers to communication rather than trying to remove obstacles. While I have almost total sympathy with the ACL position and none at all with Sisu, there is a short window of time in which this situation can be resolved, therefore I would hope that ACL Directors would park their demands for the two issues - payment of £590k and cessation of legal action - pending the outcome of proper communication with Sisu. It would not be reasonable to expect them to drop these conditions entirely to enable CCFC to return to the Ricoh in my opinion, so I would expect those demands to be met in any agreement.

That by my reading is the gist of the Trust letter. It is not a 'blame all sides' statement - that issue has been resolved anyway, so we know that Sisu has by far the greatest responsibility for this farcical situation. That said, we have to recognise that Sisu remain in control of OUR club and will continue in that position for the short/medium term - OSB58 explains it perfectly earlier in this thread - so for an early return to the Ricoh to be achieved the pre-conditions on Communication between ACL and Sisu have to be removed by both parties.

I believe that for most fans, an early return to the Ricoh is the No.1 priority. Ridding Coventry City of the stain that is Sisu is a key objective for many including me but will take longer. My fear is that if we are not back at the Ricoh by the start of the new season, the Club will be as good as dead before Sisu leave.

 

[shmmeee]

It seems to me that the key point of this Open Letter is that, if the Bring City Home campaign is to succeed quickly, a genuine dialogue needs to occur between the parties, without pre-conditions that prevent discussions. I don't read the Letter as asking ACL to give into Sisu on their main concerns. Preferably both sides should cease making comments via media outlets and get down to direct, constructive exchanges. They will each have key demands that they will want addressed in an eventual outcome, but neither side gain if they continue Posturing rather than Communicating - and certainly the Supporters continue to lose out all the while this stand-off persists. Each party seems to be convinced that the other will fold through attrition; it may be true that one will eventually collapse but not anytime soon.

The biggest hurdle is probably Sisu's (Joy's I believe) insistence on pursuing the Appeal - that could be overcome if Sisu agree that the legal process will be dropped if agreement on all other points is reached. The easiest hurdle to overcome ought to be the Matchday Revenues - because this is a matter of sales rather than profit, it surely would be simple to let CCFC have the income and inflate the charges paid to ACL in compensation?

Regrettably, both ACL and Sisu seem intent on building barriers to communication rather than trying to remove obstacles. While I have almost total sympathy with the ACL position and none at all with Sisu, there is a short window of time in which this situation can be resolved, therefore I would hope that ACL Directors would park their demands for the two issues - payment of £590k and cessation of legal action - pending the outcome of proper communication with Sisu. It would not be reasonable to expect them to drop these conditions entirely to enable CCFC to return to the Ricoh in my opinion, so I would expect those demands to be met in any agreement.

That by my reading is the gist of the Trust letter. It is not a 'blame all sides' statement - that issue has been resolved anyway, so we know that Sisu has by far the greatest responsibility for this farcical situation. That said, we have to recognise that Sisu remain in control of OUR club and will continue in that position for the short/medium term - OSB58 explains it perfectly earlier in this thread - so for an early return to the Ricoh to be achieved the pre-conditions on Communication between ACL and Sisu have to be removed by both parties.

I believe that for most fans, an early return to the Ricoh is the No.1 priority. Ridding Coventry City of the stain that is Sisu is a key objective for many including me but will take longer. My fear is that if we are not back at the Ricoh by the start of the new season, the Club will be as good as dead before Sisu leave.

A lot I agree with. However you gloss over matchday revenues again.

Look like it or not letting Sisu have the full access to ACL's books to confirm revenue payments while they are trying to put ACL out of business is a non-starter. Especially for a short term deal.

It's not "simple to sort". It's the entire fucking crux of the argument.

Mark my words, if a short term return isn't sorted it'll be because of an inability to agree on this point.

 

[wingy]

Isn't this the Juncture for a Poll,Somebody?

 

[covcity4life]

good statement from the trust

 

[oldskyblue58]

A lot I agree with. However you gloss over matchday revenues again.

Look like it or not letting Sisu have the full access to ACL's books to confirm revenue payments while they are trying to put ACL out of business is a non-starter. Especially for a short term deal.

It's not "simple to sort". It's the entire fucking crux of the argument.

Mark my words, if a short term return isn't sorted it'll be because of an inability to agree on this point.

Why would SISU need access to ACL's books to do a short term deal ? They (SISU) are saying they will pay a rent but do all the other income streams and associated costs themselves, where is the need to access ACL's books? They may well ask for it of course but I think we can be reasonably be certain such access will be refused. Should that kill a deal - no

Any ACL costs recharged can be done by contractual agreement or by copies of original invoices - that does not mean full access to the ACL books

 

[LB87ccfc]

good statement from the trust

By saying what Michael has basically been saying for a while now..

Yet to see the trust actually succeed with anything yet and to think people donated money... for what exactly.

Yet to change anything, and never will by sitting on the fence.. bunch of softies.

 

[lamtara2006]

A lot I agree with. However you gloss over matchday revenues again.

Look like it or not letting Sisu have the full access to ACL's books to confirm revenue payments while they are trying to put ACL out of business is a non-starter. Especially for a short term deal.

It's not "simple to sort". It's the entire fucking crux of the argument.

Mark my words, if a short term return isn't sorted it'll be because of an inability to agree on this point.

I did say 'ought to be' easiest not 'would be' and you may be right that any deal fails on this point. A skilled negotiator acting as 'broker' should be able to deal with this matter though. To address your concerns, the point could be dealt with in this order:

1) Agreement to communicate, no pre-conditions so parties preserve their rights to continue with legal action, pursuit of monies owed etc.
2) Discussion and agreement in principle - without ACL opening their books to scrutiny - on a mechanism for transferring Matchday Revenues to CCFC with an equivalent compensation payment to ACL for giving up this revenue stream.
3) If that and all other key points agreed, subject to Due Diligence, Sisu drop the JR appeal and give a binding undertaking not to take further legal action in respect of any matters past or present. (As I see it, they then have no route to distress ACL.)
4) Due Diligence in which ACL disclose revenue values.
5) Deal concluded.

Of course, there has to be a willingness on both sides (and goodwill) to reach an agreement, even get to point 1. Given the history of behaviour by Sisu and the understandable mistrust that has created, it seems unlikely that this can progress. But if those with the voice to do so - eg. the Trust - don't encourage & arm-twist both sides to engage in meaningful discussions, there is no chance of it happening and our club will slowly die in Northampton.

 

[oldskyblue58]

have seen here or on CT and other sites people saying the Trust are not doing anything (not actually true but there you go). So to those making the judgements what would you have the Trust do....... don't say "come down of the fence" that's meaningless........ what specific actions would you do if you were the Trust Board and importantly what outcome would you expect to achieve by each action?

 

[shmmeee]

I did say 'ought to be' easiest not 'would be' and you may be right that any deal fails on this point. A skilled negotiator acting as 'broker' should be able to deal with this matter though. To address your concerns, the point could be dealt with in this order:

1) Agreement to communicate, no pre-conditions so parties preserve their rights to continue with legal action, pursuit of monies owed etc.
2) Discussion and agreement in principle - without ACL opening their books to scrutiny - on a mechanism for transferring Matchday Revenues to CCFC with an equivalent compensation payment to ACL for giving up this revenue stream.
3) If that and all other key points agreed, subject to Due Diligence, Sisu drop the JR appeal and give a binding undertaking not to take further legal action in respect of any matters past or present. (As I see it, they then have no route to distress ACL.)
4) Due Diligence in which ACL disclose revenue values.
5) Deal concluded.

Of course, there has to be a willingness on both sides (and goodwill) to reach an agreement, even get to point 1. Given the history of behaviour by Sisu and the understandable mistrust that has created, it seems unlikely that this can progress. But if those with the voice to do so - eg. the Trust - don't encourage & arm-twist both sides to engage in meaningful discussions, there is no chance of it happening and our club will slowly die in Northampton.

I don't disagree the arm twisting is a good thing. Just not sure it's any different from what's been ineffective over the last 18 months from all sides.

I really don't understand why we've dropped the request for a short term return though? Seems like a step backwards to me. We're all just happy to wait it out until details can (or can't) be sorted and the club move back full time or not at all? We're happy to stay in Sixfields if a new ground needs to be built?

 

[shmmeee]

have seen here or on CT and other sites people saying the Trust are not doing anything (not actually true but there you go). So to those making the judgements what would you have the Trust do....... don't say "come down of the fence" that's meaningless........ what actions would you do if you were the Trust Board and importantly what outcome would you expect to achieve by each action?

Let's be honest here OSB. There's nothing they can do in reality, there's only two or three people with the power to impact this in any meaningful way and they're not listening to anyone.

I'd like them to have stuck with the previous line: We want CCFC back in Coventry ASAP. No ifs, no buts, that's what we want and you children in charge of Sisu/ACL will just have to grow up and sort your differences out or go your separate ways. But not while harming the fans.

I'd like them to clearly state they want Cov back in Cov and don't particularly care how that happens. I'd like them to separate the issue of long term viability of the club and the action of taking us out of Northampton, you can agree with one and not the other. Basically, I'd like them to stop playing Sisu's game and start playing ours. FFP, F&B, etc is a smokescreen. It's tying a long term issue onto a short term one to kick it into the long grass. There are two arguments here: 1) CCFC should not be in Northampton 2) CCFC need to be viable in the future and this is best achieved by whatever Sisu want (which they still haven't been clear on - another reason not to blindly back their requests).

1 is by far the most pressing. 2 can wait for it to be sorted. 1 is simple. 2 is complicated. 1 unites the fans. 2 divides them.

Off the top of my head a better approach would have been:

"This mess has gone on far, far too long. There are City fans dying without seeing their team one last time, without one last pint with their mates at half time. There are brand new City fans who have never seen their team play at home and others that once were City fans and are being lost to time and apathy.

Enough is enough. This cannot go on any longer. CCFC need to play in Coventry for the 2014/15 season. The Trust demand that all sides meet immediately without precondition with a view to achieving this simple goal. We would like Sisu to drop demands for matchday revenue in the short term and accept the club is better off at the Ricoh while it's future is decided. We would like ACL to accept the money is in an escrow account and drop the request for legal action to be dropped before discussions can begin.

Coventry City should be offered, and the offer should be accepted, free rent, paying only match day costs, while negotiations are ongoing. Should negotiations not be complete by the end of the 2013/14 season, then both sides should accept that a resolution is not possible and plans should be made to build a new stadium, with the full support and inclusion of CCFC fans and Coventry City Council.

If one more fan dies before his club return, if one more young supporter turns away from the club or even the sport because they can't see their home town team, then that rests solely on the refusal of all parties to put aside all barriers and Bring City Home."

 

[lamtara2006]

have seen here or on CT and other sites people saying the Trust are not doing anything (not actually true but there you go). So to those making the judgements what would you have the Trust do....... don't say "come down of the fence" that's meaningless........ what specific actions would you do if you were the Trust Board and importantly what outcome would you expect to achieve by each action?

It appears to me that many of those having a real go at the Trust, particularly in CT, are 'Sisu Out / NOPM' hardliners, for whom getting rid of Sisu is more important than returning the club to Coventry. They either don't appreciate the risk that the club will expire if an early return is not achieved or would rather watch it die than have Sisu at the helm. It is a view that I can partly relate to on an emotional level, but it lacks any sort of pragmatism. Sisu are bullet-proof in the short-term.

As to what the Trust should be doing, for the next few weeks I think the strategy of trying to encourage talks is absolutely correct. More pressure on the Football League would be ideal, aimed at getting them to broker immediate discussions between ACL and Sisu. (Not sure that more Open Letters would be wise as this one seems to have back-fired to a degree.) However, if we are not back at the Ricoh by the start of the new season (or there is no serious prospect of an early return) it will be time to recognise that attempts to engage with Sisu in a reasonable manner are completely useless. What then? Not something that I want to post on a public forum to give advanced warning.

 

[covcity4life]

By saying what Michael has basically been saying for a while now..

Yet to see the trust actually succeed with anything yet and to think people donated money... for what exactly.

Yet to change anything, and never will by sitting on the fence.. bunch of softies.

its different imo, trust are using common sense and urging both sides to talk

micheal instead would be like

"oh i hate you both, well i hate sisu more, i am so fed up,if you dont talk by friday we are breaking up, i am talking to sisu btw as i dont blame council for anything, but i am neutral so this is for both of you(just sisu really)"

 

[Rob S]

I wish I had a bit of time to go into this but work is calling so rather than just leave a ...

It appears to me that many of those having a real go at the Trust, particularly in CT, are 'Sisu Out / NOPM' hardliners, for whom getting rid of Sisu is more important than returning the club to Coventry. They either don't appreciate the risk that the club will expire if an early return is not achieved or would rather watch it die than have Sisu at the helm. It is a view that I can partly relate to on an emotional level, but it lacks any sort of pragmatism. Sisu are bullet-proof in the short-term.

Agree with this wholeheartedly. As someone who was NOPM before it even existed – and had the piss taken for taking a stand at the time – I came to the conclusion that it was going to cause more damage than good after the fallout from the golden share retention-CVA-10pts deduction had settled, which is why I let myself get dragged into helping out with Get Cov Back to the Ricoh with a focus on making sure all sides were accountable and negotiation was the way forward.

Us football fans can be an emotional bunch but there has to be a time for more pragmatic action sometimes and the whole trust movement is built on that. 'Sack the board!' gets replaced by 'We are on the board!'

I just hope that our trust board – and everyone else for that matter – remember one of the golden rules of the WWW: Newspaper website comments are really not worth paying attention to.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I wish I had a bit of time to go into this but work is calling so rather than just leave a ...



Agree with this wholeheartedly. As someone who was NOPM before it even existed – and had the piss taken for taking a stand at the time – I came to the conclusion that it was going to cause more damage than good after the fallout from the golden share retention-CVA-10pts deduction had settled, which is why I let myself get dragged into helping out with Get Cov Back to the Ricoh with a focus on making sure all sides were accountable and negotiation was the way forward.

Us football fans can be an emotional bunch but there has to be a time for more pragmatic action sometimes and the whole trust movement is built on that. 'Sack the board!' gets replaced by 'We are on the board!'

I just hope that our trust board – and everyone else for that matter – remember one of the golden rules of the WWW: Newspaper website comments are really not worth paying attention to.

Who started it then? To all appearances it is your baby, there is no one else who demonstrates any drive or the slightest bit of initiative behind it. Hey perhaps it was started by Tim Fisher or is Les Reid the Svengali behind it all?

 

[Nick]

have seen here or on CT and other sites people saying the Trust are not doing anything (not actually true but there you go). So to those making the judgements what would you have the Trust do....... don't say "come down of the fence" that's meaningless........ what specific actions would you do if you were the Trust Board and importantly what outcome would you expect to achieve by each action?

I personally think the Trust are doing better things now. Yes they might not be shouting SISU out and sending pointless newsletters every day like before but it seems a lot more level headed and putting the passion to the side to think about things rather than running in following the heart.

 

[Monners]

Who started it then? To all appearances it is your baby, there is no one else who demonstrates any drive or the slightest bit of initiative behind it. Hey perhaps it was started by Tim Fisher or is Les Reid the Svengali behind it all?

Its a fair question Rob; and worth clarification. Michael has had plenty questioning who is behind his work (and quite rightly). And you were quite critical of his approach at times.

 

[Rob S]

EDIT: Didn't see Monners' question until I posted this. Good timing

Who started it then? To all appearances it is your baby, there is no one else who demonstrates any drive or the slightest bit of initiative behind it. Hey perhaps it was started by Tim Fisher or is Les Reid the Svengali behind it all?

Haha! Not sure I'd survive working with Tim Fisher and at the risk of getting shmeee all worked up again, the only connection with Les Reid is that he's an old friend of mine who gave me a bit of advice & feedback (with the permission of his editor) when I was doing media contact when we first launched.

It was Stuart Cosgrove who started it all. He'd been meeting with some fans and there had been some discussion – including on here IIRC – about pressuring the council as well as Sisu/FL etc. (Someone here asked Michael Orton if KCIC/NOPM were doing anything but he said he had enough on his plate, again IIRC.) He got in touch with me to help out with the online side of things as he's "as thick as a docker's butty" (his words!) when it comes to the web. I assumed it was Michael who'd put him in touch as I'd been giving him a few bits of online advice for KCIC at the time. (It wasn't)

Anyhow, I ended up doing an interview on Stuart Linnell's show just after we launched the campaign and then got press-ganged into doing more. Apparently being able to string a few sentences together on live radio without swearing is a good thing

So for the online stuff, it's me, which is why I'm more visible here on SBT. Cossy & I have fronted the whole campaign because it makes it more focussed if there's just a couple of us being named / spoken to in the media and also because we were happy to take any abuse that came the campaign's way so that others can be involved without being too worried about getting attacked. BTW, when I say 'others' I'm referring to ordinary fans rather than any non-existent, secret business/media back room manipulators.

In terms of what we're up to now, there will be no more protests or other events as we just want to let the current situation work itself out. Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and wait There might be a statement or more to keep people up-to-date but that's about it.

 

[Rob S]

Its a fair question Rob; and worth clarification. Michael has had plenty questioning who is behind his work (and quite rightly). And you were quite critical of his approach at times.

I can't remember being critical that often. In fact I think I've only made a couple of posts that have even mentioned him here. Any examples?

 

[olderskyblue]

Rob, did you ever produce any minutes or a summary of your 6 hour meeting with Joy? I have asked before, but I don't recall seeing an answer.

Maybe I just missed it?

 

[Jack Griffin]

In terms of what we're up to now, there will be no more protests or other events as we just want to let the current situation work itself out. Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and wait There might be a statement or more to keep people up-to-date but that's about it.

Everything you did was utterly ineffective & very poorly supported.

 

[Rob S]

Rob, did you ever produce any minutes or a summary of your 6 hour meeting with Joy? I have asked before, but I don't recall seeing an answer.

Maybe I just missed it?

Thanks for the reminder & apologies for forgetting. I did see your question and then the thread ballooned by over 20 pages over the weekend and I got lost in trying to catch up with what everyone was saying.

It wasn't a minuted meeting. We went into it agreeing that everything would be off the record and that we'd agree on what could be on the record after the meeting. In the end, Joy came back to me afterwards and said she'd trust us to put out whatever we felt appropriate. (This was all pre-JR judgment BTW.)

Because of everything going on with possible negotiations etc. we've held off on putting anything more formal out – apart from a few comments I've made in a few places online – until we see how things pan out. I'll be at the CCLSC AGM over the weekend and Cossy will be at the Trust one on Monday so maybe later this month but to be honest, for the moment, we'd rather fall in behind the Trust open letter as it sums up the current situation very well.

It's not that I'm being all special secret, in-the-know & all that, it's just that as soon as something comes out, a load of people jump on it, have a bundle more questions and some random conclusions so I'd rather be prepared for that & at the moment I've got a load of other stuff to do.

(Example of random conclusion: I mentioned the meeting on a forum and then someone got in touch wondering about these 'regular meetings' we'd been having with Joy. Apparently there's some 'fake KCIC page' (their words) that had put that out. We've only met her twice plus I spoke to her a couple of times in court during the JR.)

 

[Rob S]

Everything you did was utterly ineffective & very poorly supported.

I very rarely say this kind of thing in any forum but...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Monners]

I can't remember being critical that often. In fact I think I've only made a couple of posts that have even mentioned him here. Any examples?

Rob,
Thanks for the clarification. My sieve like memory has let me down once more, as I do remember Stuart Cosgrove contacted me when he first started the protest group (think it may have been as a result of my signature), so I should have put two and two together.

As for examples of your criticism, I refer to some sharp (to me anyway) criticism towards Michael around the time of the JR, after he has had a pop at the Election candidate. Again, my memory is letting me down a bit here. Nothing personal going on here I can assure you, just thought it odd to distance yourself after all the stuff with the protest candidate in the elections.

Edit: I am also a member of CCLSC but can't make the AGM unfortunately. I have proxied though (if that makes sense)

Generally agree with the Trust letter by the way

 

[Grendel]

I very rarely say this kind of thing in any forum but...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why don't you just say he is a prick who clearly loaths the club.

Or I will say it for you.

 

[olderskyblue]

Joy said she'd trust us to put out whatever we felt appropriate. (This was all pre-JR judgment BTW.)

Because of everything going on with possible negotiations etc. we've held off on putting anything more formal out – apart from a few comments I've made in a few places online – until we see how things pan out. I'll be at the CCLSC AGM over the weekend and Cossy will be at the Trust one on Monday so maybe later this month but to be honest, for the moment, we'd rather fall in behind the Trust open letter as it sums up the current situation very well.

It's not that I'm being all special secret, in-the-know & all that, it's just that as soon as something comes out, a load of people jump on it, have a bundle more questions and some random conclusions so I'd rather be prepared for that & at the moment I've got a load of other stuff to do.

Rob, it's been ages since your meeting, so I would have thought that something could have been issued for comment debate etc, as is the norm with a forum. Being prepared for questions? I would have thought that was easy, you just report what was discussed, honestly. Any more than that is putting your own spin or guessing, so report what was said.

Also, I don't see what difference it can make to anything the trust put out. It may have duplications, but then you must have had some answers, so why not share them now, rather than wait?

If the trust had had these meetings, with Joy or CCC, I expect you, and many others, would have been asking what happened.