The point being that Ward was attacking the trust and moving the focus away from the real issues....
SCG Minutes from 5th March meeting (39 Viewers)
- Thread starter Rusty Trombone
- Start date
The point being that Ward was attacking the trust and moving the focus away from the real issues....
lamtara2006
Member
I am sure that Fisher, Ward & their allies are operating distraction tactics. However, I don't think that the Trust can let such outrageous comments go unanswered - to do so would allow a view to form that Ward must be right. In particular, the Reid article is constructed to paint the Trust as a cause of disunity and that Ward's view represents the rest of the SCG:""Unfortunately, there are too many [apparently referring to Trust Board + members] who are too confrontational and want to cause trouble and disruption."
Other SCG members share that view."
Robust response to such nonsense is not mutually exclusive to challenging TF and Sisu on their manifest failings in stewardship of Coventry City, now and for the past 7 years.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I would say that is what TF wants. So I on that basis don't think they should, just hang around and ignore the vitriol (or whatever colour Mr Ward et al is using to paint them with).
Nick
Administrator
Why not just backhand him and call him a little bitch?
All of the he said she said stuff is really tiring
You don't need to be mastermind to realise the main trust people dislike SISU for their reasons (which they are well within their rights to) and others seem to strangely like SISU (which they are well within their rights to if that is how they feel). Doesn't make anybody a bigger city fan on matchday when a goal goes in does it?
I am usually one if the first to pick fault with the trust, but it isn't really new news and worthy of an article that they don't like SISU is it? I have always said the Trust should put it to the side and when dealing with SISU do it on a level, to the point field and don't give SISU and excuse not to talk to them.
Same goes with SCG, petty, pointless article. Ain't nobody got time for that.
All of the he said she said stuff is really tiring
You don't need to be mastermind to realise the main trust people dislike SISU for their reasons (which they are well within their rights to) and others seem to strangely like SISU (which they are well within their rights to if that is how they feel). Doesn't make anybody a bigger city fan on matchday when a goal goes in does it?
I am usually one if the first to pick fault with the trust, but it isn't really new news and worthy of an article that they don't like SISU is it? I have always said the Trust should put it to the side and when dealing with SISU do it on a level, to the point field and don't give SISU and excuse not to talk to them.
Same goes with SCG, petty, pointless article. Ain't nobody got time for that.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
latest statement by the trust regarding the FOI's
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/
seems the ball is in Mr Fisher's court
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/
seems the ball is in Mr Fisher's court
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. If Mr Fisher says it's true then it's up to him to provide more evidence than "honest, I have spoken to X, Y or Z".
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Clearly it's now in Mr Fishers interest to come up with the details. He's only digging himself a hole otherwise.
Perhaps he could invite someone from CRBE to attend the next SCG and clear it up with some details. I can't see what either SISU or CRBE has to gain by being aloof especially when (IIRC) all the sights apparently discussed with RBC have been discounted.
Perhaps he could invite someone from CRBE to attend the next SCG and clear it up with some details. I can't see what either SISU or CRBE has to gain by being aloof especially when (IIRC) all the sights apparently discussed with RBC have been discounted.
First thing I noticed is no mentioning of ARVO - everyone else is there.
Second the FOI request does not include a specific period. May not matter, but on the other hands it could provide a loop hole.
In any case, next thing to do is (taken for gov.uk):
Have they been asked to review their answer? If not it might be a good idea to include a copy of the SCG minutes.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
You mean in that open, inclusive atmosphere that positively welcomes criticism?
The one where it was originally queried, rather than coming away and replying in the media / statements and not challenging it there.
(I am not saying they didn't).
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
Two points:
Firstly the individuals may not have had the relevant documentation with them to do so. We saw from the last minutes that TF attacked/criticised (choose your own word) Jan for (allegedly) commenting that SISU had taken interest from the club (or something similar- can't be bothered to look it up) - OSB later cast doubt on TF's reading of the accounts. I can see why that might make someone want to check their facts before challenging him.
Secondly as I suggested above, the atmosphere of the meetings does not appear to be the sort that encourages challenge to the owners. The minutes suggest just the opposite. Some people are happy to argue in that environment, some are not.
If the club want these meetings to be the forum where people "put all their grievances on the table", then they're going about it in an odd way.
I think OSB said that although TF was right in saying sisu didn't take out any money, they might (assumption) be able to benefit from charging interest that's then converted to equity, as that will raise the asset base they are managing and maybe they then receive an increased fee from the investors. A lot of 'if's' but could be correct.
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
That sounds broadly correct.
I was just trying to make the point that given that background, I can understand why someone might feel the need to have chapter and verse before challenging.
It's more interesting to check his facts. We now have on record TF saying CRBE held conversations with Rugby Borough - and we have on record Rugby saying no conversations happened. Now we need to go back to Rugby, show them the SCG minutes and ask if they want to change their statement.
Nothing happens when people are making this personal. Keep calm, take notes and follow the paper trail. Eventually we will get closer to the truth.
blueflint
Well-Known Member
DazzleTommyDazzle
Well-Known Member
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Excellent letter some will find fault in the wording/questions asked though I have no doubt.
duffer
Well-Known Member
No discussions, or no meaningful discussions?
I think it's entirely possible that someone from CBRE might have had a ten minute phone call with a planning officer, regarding their thoughts on the possiblity of a ground in location x, or a training facility in location y, and that either not being seen as meaningful or even logged anywhere for an FOI officer to find.
I think people are putting a bit too much faith in FOI here, just to prove something that we mostly already know anyway - there are no realistic plans for a new stadium yet.
Fisher seems to have opened the door to the trust here, possibly unwisely. He's said they should phone him to talk about it, why not do just that rather than push out more statements on the website?
I think it's entirely possible that someone from CBRE might have had a ten minute phone call with a planning officer, regarding their thoughts on the possiblity of a ground in location x, or a training facility in location y, and that either not being seen as meaningful or even logged anywhere for an FOI officer to find.
I think people are putting a bit too much faith in FOI here, just to prove something that we mostly already know anyway - there are no realistic plans for a new stadium yet.
Fisher seems to have opened the door to the trust here, possibly unwisely. He's said they should phone him to talk about it, why not do just that rather than push out more statements on the website?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Why he obviously doesn't want to speak to them at the rightful place.
The SCG meeting is now the place to bring up Q and A on the new stadium since SG team was disbanded.
And anyway the Trust members have a right to know anything the Trust has found out.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Do you think it's viable from a ten minute phone call to ascertain if site X or Y is suitable for this that or the other? I would say no. In fact I'd say it's a waste of a phone call as it basically amounts to a memory I have of ringing a girl I fancied when I was at school but being shy everytime someone answered it I panicked and hung up. Net result being I never asked her out and I never went on a date.
If we're to believe that a ten minute phone call is why the FOI's are saying no then the FOI's are still correct. In the big scheme of purchasing a 62 acre site for a multi million pound development you've had a ten minute phone call in almost 2 years you've done nothing. It's about as productive as going on google maps saying ooo! that looks about 60 acre's and then still saying 2 years later we've identified some sites.
Nick
Administrator
So the rightful place is a press release?
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
So are you saying TF may have used unproductive event/discussion that may have taken place as cast iron evidence of progress on stadium land acquisition?
duffer
Well-Known Member
I can't quite follow the logic here. Fisher's said that he could've explained it in a conversation, and seemingly opened the door to have that conversation. But instead of doing that, what you seem to be suggesting is that it's better to have a row at the SCG or publish press releases on the website.
What does this actually achieve? If the trust is there to engage with the club, then engage with them. Pick up the phone and talk to Fisher, and then let's see his explanation regarding this and everything else to do with the new ground.
There's a lot more to the new ground than just talking to councils that needs to be drawn out. Alternatively, get into a pointless one-way debate about an FOI request that can't really tell us more much than we already know.
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I don't think we should necessarily focus on single words as such. The word "meaningful" is part of the Trust summary of where they think we are - there is no available evidence to say otherwise
Even the summary provided to the Stadium group by Fisher listed 3 sites that were (a) very varied in size and (b) unsuitable. So whilst, if you believe in what he says, it might prove efforts have been made again it is not unreasonable to conclude there is nothing meaningful on any of those sites. If you take what TF has said about the 3 sites at face value that surely must imply more than 10 minute phone calls? Only thing it does do is confirm where it wont be
We know that there was contact with Nuneaton and with Rugby both have said there has been nothing developed from that or that the proposal made was rejected. Therefore we know there have been a couple of discussions but nothing "meaningful"
Could there have been short phone calls - well perhaps and no it may well not be logged - so are they meaningful in any sense? are we sure they even happened? I could phone up and say I was thinking of building a ground couldn't I? - I am not and it isn't meaningful
Should we rely on the FOI's no - they should be a starting point in either pressing the club for proper details or for further investigation. Are the FOI's fool proof - I would think not because people are involved and people make mistakes (including honest mistakes)
As for the Trust picking up the phone - well as I understand it there are number of things to consider
- firstly the Trust I understand is still waiting for a proper reply to emails sent before Christmas
- Phones work both ways TF could pick the phone up if he has an issue rather than bringing it to the SCG couldn't he? Wouldn't serve the purpose though would it
- As I understand it the Trust has been told that any questions should be put to the SCG whose Board reps will put it to the directors. Anyone got any faith in that?
- Phone calls tend not to be minuted (see above re FOI's)so what does a phone call achieve in proving anything? He said she said oh no I didn't - equals more confusion and is not helpful
- Such close contact as there was I think ceased shortly after the return the Ricoh and the SCG became the clubs chosen vehicle of contact
This is a battle for hearts and minds in a sense. From the Trust point of view then they need to keep the characters and emotion out of it. They need to prove to their members they are doing something, they need to get what is going on out in to the public domain
The latest statement might not be perfect but it says clearly what the Trust have done, what they understand and why then invites (not demands) TF to clarify the situation for everyone's benefit and to have those facts on public record for everyone to access
Even the summary provided to the Stadium group by Fisher listed 3 sites that were (a) very varied in size and (b) unsuitable. So whilst, if you believe in what he says, it might prove efforts have been made again it is not unreasonable to conclude there is nothing meaningful on any of those sites. If you take what TF has said about the 3 sites at face value that surely must imply more than 10 minute phone calls? Only thing it does do is confirm where it wont be
We know that there was contact with Nuneaton and with Rugby both have said there has been nothing developed from that or that the proposal made was rejected. Therefore we know there have been a couple of discussions but nothing "meaningful"
Could there have been short phone calls - well perhaps and no it may well not be logged - so are they meaningful in any sense? are we sure they even happened? I could phone up and say I was thinking of building a ground couldn't I? - I am not and it isn't meaningful
Should we rely on the FOI's no - they should be a starting point in either pressing the club for proper details or for further investigation. Are the FOI's fool proof - I would think not because people are involved and people make mistakes (including honest mistakes)
As for the Trust picking up the phone - well as I understand it there are number of things to consider
- firstly the Trust I understand is still waiting for a proper reply to emails sent before Christmas
- Phones work both ways TF could pick the phone up if he has an issue rather than bringing it to the SCG couldn't he? Wouldn't serve the purpose though would it
- As I understand it the Trust has been told that any questions should be put to the SCG whose Board reps will put it to the directors. Anyone got any faith in that?
- Phone calls tend not to be minuted (see above re FOI's)so what does a phone call achieve in proving anything? He said she said oh no I didn't - equals more confusion and is not helpful
- Such close contact as there was I think ceased shortly after the return the Ricoh and the SCG became the clubs chosen vehicle of contact
This is a battle for hearts and minds in a sense. From the Trust point of view then they need to keep the characters and emotion out of it. They need to prove to their members they are doing something, they need to get what is going on out in to the public domain
The latest statement might not be perfect but it says clearly what the Trust have done, what they understand and why then invites (not demands) TF to clarify the situation for everyone's benefit and to have those facts on public record for everyone to access
Last edited:
duffer
Well-Known Member
So you'd agree then that there could have been discussions that might not make into an FOI?
Why this gets people so excited is beyond me - it's an argument about precisely nothing. Both RBC and Fisher could be actually be telling the truth here, there seems to be absolutely no understanding here of how FOI requests can work in real life.
Regardless, it's still blindingly obvious that there's been little or no progress on a new stadium, I'm far more interested in how the club can continue to make a case for it than seeing a pointless slanging match continued by the Trust.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The council spent £14m on bailing out ACL a couple of years ago. Nobody even took any minutes.
That said... the progress made on the 'project' is beyond unacceptable no matter how it is served up.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I agree. I also think that if phone call(s) did happen the fact that they didn't warrant scheduling a face to face meeting which an FOI request would have surely picked up. In other words the phone calls were so meaningless that they can't be classed as progress which is what many people seem to be classing them as.
Either way I would say progress has been grossly over exaggerated going by the FOI's and the severe lack of anything meaningful coming from SISU. A generic artist impression, no stadium designs, a disbanded stadium group and not even a business plan other than a few often repeated sound bites. It's not alot to show for the best part of 2 years "hard work" is it.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I absolutely agree. I'd genuinely move past it and try to engage on the bigger issue, which is how the club could afford the new ground.
duffer
Well-Known Member
All fair enough OSB - but if Fisher made a genuine offer to pick up the phone and talk about it, then I think the trust should try it. At the moment the Trust have got themselves into an antagonistic position with the club, and seemingly with Fisher personally, and seem determined to continue down that route with this 'press-release' approach.
Where's the harm in a phone call - it doesn't have to be off the record and the trust could report on it as they see fit. If Fisher disputed what was said, then I'm sure he could make a statement to clarify.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
How do you know they haven't ?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't they tell us?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Commercial confidentiality
In all seriousness though all the trust have done is call the club into question. Is that not the point of the trust and indeed the SCG?
I'd say it's the clubs reaction to being called into question and certain members of the SCG that are the issue. Especially the certain members of the SCG part.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Fair enough duffer all quite reasonable. But phones work both ways don't they.
a long time prior to the change in stance based on the members survey the Trust were told all questions now have to be directed through the SCG. That is not a Trust decision but a club one
You would think it was in both sides benefit to talk properly wouldn't you. That to me seems the most sensible route certainly. There seems to be a perception that all the antagonism is coming from the Trust. Simply not the case. Just my opinion but yes the Trust has made what I would call glaring errors in their approach to things but it looks to me (and I may well be wrong) that the club is seeking to marginalise the Trust. Why do they need to do that?
If that is true then two questions
- what is the threat to the owners that the Trust brings because clearly the Trust has always irked them
- isn't it easy to say "call me" weeks later when the reality is that is just window dressing whilst the real agenda is played out so such a phone call achieves what exactly?
All seems like playing games on both sides with possibly equal blame. As I said before the Trust need to concentrate on the issues not the emotions and characters and if the club wont discuss those issues directly in an open and proper way the options for the Trust are what ? Who is challenging SISU and the Owners and if no one does how do we get to the real facts?
What is certainly going on is that the focus is repeatedly placed on the Trust when the focus should be on the Club and its issues - but we have seen that tactic before repeatedly haven't we. Who benefits from that?
Just observations and like I say I might have misinterpreted things and be wrong
Last edited: