3 Critical Days in the History of Coventry City (3 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

Going back to this one as you've evidently edited it with further information. Which meeting? I check the minutes on-line. Was a meeting with Joy - perhaps touched upon in a meeting - not worth minuting for the balance of us not in attendance to read about?

The AGM.

As I said, it was a nothing statement. Maybe it should have been put down, but all that was said was along the lines of 'I have also met Joy Seppala'. Maybe it should have been minuted, but it said nothing about nothing, and certainly wasn't actively hidden as conspiracy would like to think, as the information was actively volunteered, not asked for!

 

---

[John_Silletts_Nose]

According to the constitution of the Sky Blue Trust, the meeting between the Trust and Joy Seppala should have been minuted, so allowing the members to know the details of discussions during the meeting.

The Trust board are representatives of the members and as such should disclose all information to the people they represent and not keep information private.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

According to the constitution of the Sky Blue Trust, the meeting between the Trust and Joy Seppala should have been minuted, so allowing the members to know the details of discussions during the meeting.

The Trust board are representatives of the members and as such should disclose all information to the people they represent and not keep information private.

Does that apply to meetings with 'other interested parties' too, then?

It's a slippery slope...

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The AGM.

As I said, it was a nothing statement. Maybe it should have been put down, but all that was said was along the lines of 'I have also met Joy Seppala'. Maybe it should have been minuted, but it said nothing about nothing, and certainly wasn't actively hidden as conspiracy would like to think, as the information was actively volunteered, not asked for!

I'm sorry, I didn't start on this one with the ambition of knocking the SBT as I think they're doing a job many of are unable to do; BUT, when you enter what was minuted in the June minutes - that being quite categorically that a meeting with JS was being sought (and therefore raising expectation in that regard), and then it's not minuted again but it transpires that a meeting has taken place; then yes - something does need to be minuted subsequently. Even if it's to state that they are confident meeting JS is feasible, but that confidentiality should prevail. Thus acting as information to those of us who do subscribe, or do contribute and read the minutes and follow them as an evolving and accurate narrative.

Again; this is how conspiracy theories begin to grow. And they shouldn't. Or worse still, people feel left out and relinquish their membership. Which is - with respect - even worse. Everything I have seen of Jan and Moz, in the public arena and at the march has been very helpful to the cause, and it wouldn't be great if people lost faith in the cause due to events such as this

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'm sorry, I didn't start on this one with the ambition of knocking the SBT as I think they're doing a job many of are unable to do; BUT, when you enter what was minuted in the June minutes - that being quite categorically that a meeting with JS was being sought (and therefore raising expectation in that regard), and then it's not minuted again but it transpires that a meeting has taken place; then yes - something does need to be minuted subsequently. Even if it's to state that they are confident meeting JS is feasible, but that confidentiality should prevail. Thus acting as information to those of us who do subscribe, or do contribute and read the minutes and follow them as an evolving and accurate narrative.

Again; this is how conspiracy theories begin to grow. And they shouldn't. Or worse still, people feel left out and relinquish their membership. Which is - with respect - even worse. Everything I have seen of Jan and Moz, in the public arena and at the march has been very helpful to the cause, and it wouldn't be great if people lost faith in the cause due to events such as this

OK, fine, and tbf I can broadly agree with this.

I do however think on this particular thread, which is attempting to raise people for a protest (again, something that feedback suggested the Trust should be doing - so they're acting on feedback) it's an unwelcome distraction. Also tbf (whisper it ) your view I've quoted is pretty reasonable; it's in danger of being lost in an overreactive outcry, however. I wish I'd never even entered this thread on this issue about now as it's distracting from the main thrust...

As an aside, and FWIW (not much, but still...) I've always said what the Trust should really be doing is canvassing views from non members about why they're not members, if it truly wants to become a broad church. The danger is if an AGM can only get, what, 30-odd people turning up then it is ripe for a coup, and distorting viewpoints in any direction.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Hey, I don't think I was being ranty or shouty.. a most unreasonable and over used accusation, in itself deployed to try & shut up people who have different views to ones own.

Note I never make that accusation, absolutely never, I think it is healthy to discuss things openly.

shmmee asked a genuine question, I checked the facts and I discovered that what was being disclosed to the membership in the minutes was perhaps less than the whole truth.

I knew what had happened, and although I don't agree with the line taken I didn't scream & shout about it and I only reacted when a genuine question was asked and what I said was the unvarnished truth as I understood it. After all Micheal Orton had already said what the score was, so the cat was out the bag.. but not everyone reads his mailout.

A simple 'we met JS on such and such a date but details are confidential' in the minutes would have been adequate.. I know that's all can & will be said.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Hey, I don't think I was being ranty or shouty.

I meant if the Trust goes ranty and shouty as it's approach, not that you were being ranty and shouty on this thread...

 

[Jack Griffin]

I meant if the Trust goes ranty and shouty as it's approach, not that you were being ranty and shouty on this thread...

TBH, I think they are not ranty & shouty enough..

 

[Deleted member 5849]

TBH, I think they are not ranty & shouty enough..

And here's where we go in the circles referred to above. We'll all have our own views on how to get things done. When it comes to something that's centrally organised such as Cardiff that has a general message that can be interpreted as 'we're not very happy' (no shit!) then, to a degree, we have to compromise what we'd have all done, and make the best of it.

It's not what I'd have done, I really fear it'll be a damp squib but...

It's there, it's not got an especially controversial message to split us among ourselves, so now it's all our collective responsibility to try and make the best of it.

 

[Covstu]

There should be a protest at Highfield Road, at the Houses, to commemorate where it all started. If we could fix football we could rebuild HF and I think the Trust could do this if we got some exposure on Sky etc.

Not sure where this one is going... i see what you mean about the location but dont think it is really fair to have 5000 fans sing outside peoples home! Not sure the trust can rebuild HF either!!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

TBH, I think they are not ranty & shouty enough..

I am

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

Does that apply to meetings with 'other interested parties' too, then?

It's a slippery slope...

The rule in the constitution applies to all meetings where the society is represented as this becomes a "society meeting". If they had met as private individuals then it would have been fine and no rules apply.

It is a "slippery slope" when they do not follow the rules which they have set.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The rule in the constitution applies to all meetings where the society is represented as this becomes a "society meeting". If they had met as private individuals then it would have been fine and no rules apply.

How do you define when they meet as individuals, and when as representatives? Surely, in fact, the above statement actually means there was no reason to even volunteer the information of a meeting, full-stop?

 

[AndreasB]

Unbelievable that some people on here feel so upset as to relinquish membership of the trust . - funny you do that now when the trust (apart from Mad Michael) are being eminently sensible. The time you should have jacked them in was when Moz etc were sucking up to Haskell et al in the most sycophantic and cringing manner.

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

How do you define when they meet as individuals, and when as representatives? Surely, in fact, the above statement actually means there was no reason to even volunteer the information of a meeting, full-stop?

They have minuted in an SBT board meeting that they were seeking a meeting with Joy, in the meeting which took place, and has been discussed, they were representing the views of the SBT and not as individuals.

It would be better for them to reveal the contents of the discussion rather than be accused of having a secretive meeting and causing speculation on hidden agendas.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I do find it strange that certain posters get accused of being paranoid but they are then refused access to all the facts.

If you hide the truth from people don't be surprised when they make up their own version of the truth.

 

[Steve.B50]

Why go anywhere near Sixfields? Another protest at the Ricoh would make a bigger impact IMO. On the Cardiff date of course.

I hope this game is a killer for SISU. The less fans the better.

We have one opportunity to make a statement.

 

[LB87ccfc]

We have one opportunity to make a statement.

With all 20 of you.... vote with your feet I am afraid, Sky would make a bigger deal of no one in the ground than 20 people on a hill holding pieces of paper.

Now if 5,000 turned up with all kinds of flags and causing havoc outside, it would be a different story.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

With all 20 of you.... vote with your feet I am afraid, Sky would make a bigger deal of no one in the ground than 20 people on a hill holding pieces of paper.

Now if 5,000 turned up with all kinds of flags and causing havoc outside, it would be a different story.

Yes but unfortunately you and the other 4979 cant be bothered.

 

[dadgad]

We certainly need to protest at the injustice of not playing in Cov but as 90 % of Cov fans have never and will never go to Sixfields this seems a bit of an odd venue for a protest. Unless, of course, it prevents the match from happening - ?
It is high time the tiny minority of Sixfueld attendees boycotted a match. This should have happened by now in order to attract further media attention.

 

[Grendel]

We certainly need to protest at the injustice of not playing in Cov but as 90 % of Cov fans have never and will never go to Sixfields this seems a bit of an odd venue for a protest. Unless, of course, it prevents the match from happening - ?
It is high time the tiny minority of Sixfueld attendees boycotted a match. This should have happened by now in order to attract further media attention.

If people like you hadn't boycotted every home match for the last 10 years we wouldn't be in this mess would we?

 

[Ian1779]

Far more notice would be paid if all the people that won't go to Sixfields turned up at the Ricoh at the same time. Organise it properly...let some people in the media know.

If 5000 (maybe even 10000) turned up to the Ricoh in one go that would make one hell of a statement.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Far more notice would be paid if all the people that won't go to Sixfields turned up at the Ricoh at the same time. Organise it properly...let some people in the media know.

If 5000 (maybe even 10000) turned up to the Ricoh in one go that would make one hell of a statement.

It helped last time didn't it?

 

[Chipfat]

Most didn't boycott going to the Ricoh most seen under these current owners the club was going backwards and still is. With or without help these are taking the club and have taken the club to the lowest point in it's history!!!! You can't keep passing the blame Gren,, you must see the owners are to blame for the current state of the club not the paying public....

 

[Steve.B50]

Far more notice would be paid if all the people that won't go to Sixfields turned up at the Ricoh at the same time. Organise it properly...let some people in the media know.

If 5000 (maybe even 10000) turned up to the Ricoh in one go that would make one hell of a statement.

Ian
What would that proove and who would be interested in covering it?
The whole issue in all this is that most people have given up the fight.
At least on the hill you can watch the fame.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Ian
What would that proove and who would be interested in covering it?
The whole issue in all this is that most people have given up the fight.
At least on the hill you can watch the fame.

You're right you can watch me I'm famous

 

[italiahorse]

Far more notice would be paid if all the people that won't go to Sixfields turned up at the Ricoh at the same time. Organise it properly...let some people in the media know.

If 5000 (maybe even 10000) turned up to the Ricoh in one go that would make one hell of a statement.

In my opinion a lot of people attending Sixfields have nothing else major going on in their life.
The sense of belonging is too great to break so they need to attend. Not knocking it but sometimes people need to look at the bigger picture.
Sisu seem to be happy that some people are their attending and it seems to also make it okay for the FL.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

In my opinion a lot of people attending Sixfields have nothing else major going on in their life.
The sense of belonging is too great to break so they need to attend. Not knocking it but sometimes people need to look at the bigger picture.
Sisu seem to be happy that some people are their attending and it seems to also make it okay for the FL.

Bullshit.

 

[Neutral Fan]

Far more notice would be paid if all the people that won't go to Sixfields turned up at the Ricoh at the same time. Organise it properly...let some people in the media know.

If 5000 (maybe even 10000) turned up to the Ricoh in one go that would make one hell of a statement.

Would it not be well noticed if 5-10k protested opposite the TV cameras outside the demolished East stand for the CC v CC CC game? NOPM but all on telly.

I would have thought it a fantastic one-off opportunity but it looks like it might end up 50 folk on the hill again.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Anyway, I have a practical question.

Not because I'm NOPM like, more because I'm tight fisted but... does anybody notice if you park in the food outlets car parks etc for free?

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Would it not be well noticed if 5-10k protested opposite the TV cameras outside the demolished East stand for the CC v CC CC game? NOPM but all on telly.

I would have thought it a fantastic one-off opportunity but it looks like it might end up 50 folk on the hill again.

Well at least I'll know everybody.

 

[Neutral Fan]

Anyway, I have a practical question.

Not because I'm NOPM like, more because I'm tight fisted but... does anybody notice if you park in the food outlets car parks etc for free?

I think you'd get away with it for a CC game. How would the cinema know who's who? I've never seen wardens there and if there are any parking signs I've never seen any.

 

[Ian1779]

It helped last time didn't it?

No it didn't because people were attending a charity game.

 

[italiahorse]

Bullshit.

... continuing on ..... some of these people get abusive when it is suggested that not attending Sixfields might be worth a try.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Some people don't want to be associated with any kind of protest which divides and categorises fans as 'types', so the shit about people who go in to the ground needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.