SCG Minutes from 5th March meeting (23 Viewers)

[wingy]

Really who cares
I don't and won't until the wankers fuck off

 

---

[dongonzalos]

What about styling, fonts. ie option 1 and 2 are huge and in bold and neither is hidden away at the bottom. You can tell in the text above the questions the way it is trying to make you go.

Like I said, nothing wrong if people hate them. It could cause issues when running a fans group being so open about it when it comes to communications though and the article is a non story really. Tit for that.

It just seems to be SCG and Observer vs Trust and Telegraph.

Not great Odds 12 people verses 3500.

Then again the 12 have the ear and are the mouthpiece for the club. The others just represent most fans.

Strange set up

 

[Godiva]

The whole tone of the meeting and this article is of an unrepresentative an unelected few seeking to discredit two SCG members who are (or in Jan's case were) properly elected and accountable - only a few others share that distinction. Peter Ward and Jonathan Strange (Chair & Vice-Chair) definitely don't.
In doing so they thereby help TF / Sisu distract from the difficult questions:
Why is there no progress on the new stadium?
What progress (if any) has there been on the 5 point plan?
If no interest has been "taken" by the owner-investor, why does the interest charged in the 2014 accounts not reflect in an increased liability? (See #45 above)
Why is our great club staring over the cliff-edge of relegation? The ultimate measure of Sisu's failed stewardship.

I am by no means an account analyst, but could it be the interests were converted to equity?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Nope not anti CCFC and I have said many times that some of the main trust people still go home and away every week and you could never question their status as a city fan or say anything else.

The only issue with the amount of hatred of being anti sisu is being able to deal with the club putting that hatred to the site and although you may think they are massive wankers, just keep it to yourself rather than go and speak to them and then come away calling them wankers as much as possible and moaning that they won't deal with you. (if that makes sense?)

that isn't saying I think the trust should "cosy" up to anybody and be "yes men".

I think most of us agree that a successful long term future is only possible with Sisu out of the picture. Therefore the long term aim of a city fans group has to be one that encourages new ownership. That is what is best for CCFC.

That doesn't however mean that the trust and Sisu can't work together on day to day issues to try and improve the club, and I haven't seen anything from the trust that says they wouldn't work with the current owners if it was something that benefited CCFC.

The trust should exist for only two things. To represent the majority view of fans, and for the betterment of CCFC. If either of those things upsets Sisu then that frankly is their problem.

For Sisu to be angry with a group that is critical of its ownership is showing that Sisu have taken it personally. That is something that is highly unprofessional and not characteristic of a successful global organisation (something which they claim to be).

 

[shmmeee]

Strange set up

 

[Godiva]

What about styling, fonts. ie option 1 and 2 are huge and in bold and neither is hidden away at the bottom. You can tell in the text above the questions the way it is trying to make you go.

Like I said, nothing wrong if people hate them. It could cause issues when running a fans group being so open about it when it comes to communications though and the article is a non story really. Tit for that.

It just seems to be SCG and Observer vs Trust and Telegraph.

Everything turns into black or white. It's either 'them' or 'us'. You're either with 'us' or against 'us'. If you agree with anything 'they say' you disagree with everything 'we say'.

Boring, simplistic and wrong.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

In this case RBC has not refused to answer, indeed they have been quite clear in their answer. Perhaps it is TF who doesnt understand FOI's then?

All I will say is, knowing one or two people 'in the know' (God I hate that phrase!) from certain perspectives... it's a very poor way to get information.

That is what they confirm also, not me.

Frankly, it's the lazy approach to getting information that confirms little other than whatever game is played.

 

[shmmeee]

Nope not anti CCFC and I have said many times that some of the main trust people still go home and away every week and you could never question their status as a city fan or say anything else.

The only issue with the amount of hatred of being anti sisu is being able to deal with the club putting that hatred to the site and although you may think they are massive wankers, just keep it to yourself rather than go and speak to them and then come away calling them wankers as much as possible and moaning that they won't deal with you. (if that makes sense?)

that isn't saying I think the trust should "cosy" up to anybody and be "yes men".

Has that happened anywhere, ever, or are you just making shit up?

I mean it'd be bad if Tim Fisher raped kids. But he doesn't so it seems a bit pointless bringing it up. He does however personally slander fans and cause them ill health. That's a fact and relevant to the conversation.

The club turned on the Trust not the other way around. Of course, your "balance" only extends to giving the benefit of the doubt to the club, anyone else has to deal with made up actions they haven't taken. Apparently. This is what upsets people dude, making shit up isn't balance, it's clutching at straws.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Has anyone asked why it's still secret? What are they scared of? Surely they're not still spinning the bollocks about the council acting illegally if they disclose?

It would be a more sensible question tbh. There's plenty they could disclose without it being commercially sensitive, after all...

 

[lamtara2006]

I am by no means an account analyst, but could it be the interests were converted to equity?

That's the probable answer as OSB58 identified, though pref shares rather than ordinary voting shares. So arguably it would still be an extraction of value from the club, creating a loss which then converts to a dividend bearing stock.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It would be interesting to find out if the fans represented by the SCG actually agree with them on their views ? Are any of them trust members?

...which is the frustrating thing.

It's patently clear some don't!

So as a group to guage a wide range of views, it serves its purpose.

So why oh why oh why does the chair want to discredit his own group?!?

 

[jas365]

I think most of us agree that a successful long term future is only possible with Sisu out of the picture. Therefore the long term aim of a city fans group has to be one that encourages new ownership. That is what is best for CCFC.

That doesn't however mean that the trust and Sisu can't work together on day to day issues to try and improve the club, and I haven't seen anything from the trust that says they wouldn't work with the current owners if it was something that benefited CCFC.

The trust should exist for only two things. To represent the majority view of fans, and for the betterment of CCFC. If either of those things upsets Sisu then that frankly is their problem.

For Sisu to be angry with a group that is critical of its ownership is showing that Sisu have taken it personally. That is something that is highly unprofessional and not characteristic of a successful global organisation (something which they claim to be).

Agree 100%

 

[skybluetony176]

It would be a more sensible question tbh. There's plenty they could disclose without it being commercially sensitive, after all...

...but then SISU will have to admit it's all been horse shit that's been part of a bigger failed plan that's fell on it's arse and now they don't what to do so they're going to keep bumping along until someone offer's them a way out

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If you arn't anti sisu you arn't informed or you arn't reasonable.

I don't understand the assertion that the questionairre was loaded, it was a perfectly reasonable question with a neither option available.

This is a leading question.

having nearly destroyed the club should Sisu
a) sell up
b) sack the board

This is not a loaded or leading question
Should the trust
a) call on sisu to sell up
b) sack the board
c) neither.

Sorry, but the second is a leading question. I'd fail you for that.

 

[bigfatronssba]

But that would be illegal, and unless we want to start throwing those kinds of accusations around, we have no choice but to accept RBC's reply to the FOI's.

TF has nothing to back up his version of events.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But that would be illegal, and unless we want to start throwing those kinds of accusations around, we have no choice but to accept RBC's reply to the FOI's.

TF has nothing to back up his version of events.

It wouldn't be illegal, don't spout nonsense. People well practiced in the rules know how to play them... much as SISU know how to play a pre-pack admin process, as a counterpoint.

There are many ways to give answers you want to give... and sometimes it isn't possible to find the answer beyond what's written down! Even if wanting to give a different answer, sometimes there can be no answer to give other than the 'official' but it doesn't mean there aren't other options. The moral is, don't hide behind FOI requests, ask the people themselves.

(Note, this doesn't mean there *is* anything behind a stadium, but the hiding behind the great God of FOI is a false prophet - it kills proper journalism for a start)

The problem, as much as anything, is people shove in an FOI request then... stop.

An FOI request provides *an* answer (and to clarify, nothing wrong whatsoever in publishing that answer - where's the counter beyond vague words in return, after all!), it doesn't provide the *whole* answer. Nobody, but nobody seems willing to dig beyond that however.

Budget cuts meaning a fear of being sued? Budget cuts meaning no time to build over time? An economic situation being people are less keen to talk because they might lose their jobs?

For whatever reason, it appears things come to a grinding halt at an FOI. It's a daft system that closes up more information than it opens in many ways, as it structures a rigidity that means systems are there to ensure only certain paths are travelled.

 

[Nick]

Has that happened anywhere, ever, or are you just making shit up?

I mean it'd be bad if Tim Fisher raped kids. But he doesn't so it seems a bit pointless bringing it up. He does however personally slander fans and cause them ill health. That's a fact and relevant to the conversation.

The club turned on the Trust not the other way around. Of course, your "balance" only extends to giving the benefit of the doubt to the club, anyone else has to deal with made up actions they haven't taken. Apparently. This is what upsets people dude, making shit up isn't balance, it's clutching at straws.

Sorry, as said above I didn't literally mean calling them wankers.

Who and where has been personally slandered? (I am not saying they haven't, just interested to know)

 

[bigfatronssba]

It wouldn't be illegal, don't spout nonsense. People well practiced in the rules know how to play them... much as SISU know how to play a pre-pack admin process, as a counterpoint.

There are many ways to give answers you want to give... and sometimes it isn't possible to find the answer beyond what's written down! Even if wanting to give a different answer, sometimes there can be no answer to give other than the 'official' but it doesn't mean there aren't other options. The moral is, don't hide behind FOI requests, ask the people themselves.

(Note, this doesn't mean there *is* anything behind a stadium, but the hiding behind the great God of FOI is a false prophet - it kills proper journalism for a start)

The problem, as much as anything, is people shove in an FOI request then... stop.

An FOI request provides *an* answer (and to clarify, nothing wrong whatsoever in publishing that answer - where's the counter beyond vague words in return, after all!), it doesn't provide the *whole* answer. Nobody, but nobody seems willing to dig beyond that however.

Budget cuts meaning a fear of being sued? Budget cuts meaning no time to build over time? An economic situation being people are less keen to talk because they might lose their jobs?

For whatever reason, it appears things come to a grinding halt at an FOI. It's a daft system that closes up more information than it opens in many ways, as it structures a rigidity that means systems are there to ensure only certain paths are travelled.

Of course it is illegal. RBC were asked a straightforward question and gave a straightforward reply. If they have falsified an FOI reply then maximum punishment is a custodial sentence.

Why exactly would a council employee risk going to jail in order to help Sisu?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Of course it is illegal. RBC were asked a straightforward question and gave a straightforward reply. If they have falsified an FOI reply then maximum punishment is a custodial sentence.

Why exactly would a council employee risk going to jail in order to help Sisu?

It's like you choose to wilfully misunderstand. Who the hell said anyone had falsified anything?

I'm out.

It is not illegal to answer a question within the rules.

It is not illegal for the rules to mean there are other answers which may or may not be available.

 

[bigfatronssba]

It's like you choose to wilfully misunderstand. Who the hell said anyone had falsified anything?

I'm out.

It is not illegal to answer a question within the rules.

It is not illegal for the rules to mean there are other answers which may or may not be available.

Q. Are you in discussions with any party about building a sports stadium within your borough.

A. No

That is a pretty clear response and if that isn't true then that would be illegal.

 

[Nick]

What came of CCC giving the wrong info? Did heads roll?

Just interested what usually happens when somebody messes one up.

 

[Godiva]

That's the probable answer as OSB58 identified, though pref shares rather than ordinary voting shares. So arguably it would still be an extraction of value from the club, creating a loss which then converts to a dividend bearing stock.

Hmm - if I understand OSB correctly - and mind you, I had to read his post 5 times - I think he imply they are converting debt to shares because that way the asset value of the company - and thereby the funds they manage - increase. In increasing the value, they receive a higher payment (from the funds) as a hedge funds receive a fee through a percentage of the assets they manage.

(If that came out just as tangled and confusing as I think it did - then I am on my way to graduate from OSB's 2nd year course).

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Q. Are you in discussions with any party about building a sports stadium within your borough.

A. No

That is a pretty clear response and if that isn't true then that would be illegal.

You *are* wilfully misunderstanding.

I have *never* said any information is falsified. That claim from you is bollocks and troublesome.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What came of CCC giving the wrong info? Did heads roll?

Just interested what usually happens when somebody messes one up.

You get a fine from the information commissioner and yes, heads roll.

 

[bigfatronssba]

What came of CCC giving the wrong info? Did heads roll?

Just interested what usually happens when somebody messes one up.

The second it was pointed out a grovelling apology come out and it was explained as a mistake.

Due to reacting quickly it seemed to be interpreted as a genuine mistake.

I suspect had they not reacted so quickly it would have began to look suspicious and there would have been consequences for CCC.

 

[skybluetony176]

What came of CCC giving the wrong info? Did heads roll?

Just interested what usually happens when somebody messes one up.

Think they made a correction when challenged. As did N&BBC when challenged on one of their replies which was vague. I don't think anyone has officially challenged RBC's apparent contradiction to what Mr Fisher is implying. Perhaps this is something LR could take up.

 

[Godiva]

There are many ways to give answers you want to give... and sometimes it isn't possible to find the answer beyond what's written down! Even if wanting to give a different answer, sometimes there can be no answer to give other than the 'official' but it doesn't mean there aren't other options.

Oh, God Bless Nigel Hawthorne, may he rest in peace.
(He was even born in Coventry)

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think anyone has officially challenged RBC's apparent contradiction to what Mr Fisher is implying. Perhaps this is something LR could take up.

I'd get beind that.

If Mr. Fisher has the correspondence to prove it too, I'm sure he'd be happy to release it to LR also.

 

[bigfatronssba]

You *are* wilfully misunderstanding.

I have *never* said any information is falsified. That claim from you is bollocks and troublesome.

I never said you did say any information was falsified.

What you did seem to say was that there were ways of getting around answering the question.

What I am saying is in this instance they have given an answer that can't be interpreted in any other way. So its either true or it isn't.

 

[Nick]

What was it he showed the SCG as "proof"?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

What I am saying is in this instance they have given an answer that can't be interpreted in any other way. So its either true or it isn't.

Nope, there are many ways the answer may not be available to them to give any other answer.

This is not being wilfully misleading, or falsifying... it's life!

Nor, incidentally, does it mean the answer is not true.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'd get beind that.

If Mr. Fisher has the correspondence to prove it too, I'm sure he'd be happy to release it to LR also.

That was my thinking.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Nope, there are many ways the answer may not be available to them to give any other answer.

This is not being wilfully misleading, or falsifying... it's life!

Nor, incidentally, does it mean the answer is not true.

The current official position of RBC is that no discussions have taken place.

Is there any evidence to suggest that isn't the case?

 

[skybluetony176]

Am I right in thinking that the environment agency and highways agency replied also to FOI's in a manner that doesn't back up Mr Fisher? Only all the focus seems to be on RBC, well the trust and RBC.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

What was it he showed the SCG as "proof"?

A fag packet that most of them creamed over I'm sure they will let you sniff it if you so desire