SCG Minutes from 5th March meeting (40 Viewers)

[duffer]

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.

It's not so much about asking questions of the club, as about how they're doing it which doesn't seem to be particularly productive to me. I think everyone who sits on the SCG needs to stop complaining about the rights of anyone else to sit on the panel, it's pointless bickering. Focus instead on getting the right questions to the club.

 

---

[duffer]

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

All seems like playing games on both sides with 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 are what ?

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

Not much wrong there OSB - and it's absolutely obvious to me that the club don't trust the Trust and would like nothing more than to be able to ignore them. Personally, I wouldn't give them any excuse to do that.

You're right about phones working both ways too, but it's the trust who have the questions. I think it's not unreasonable to follow up on Fisher's statement and at least try to call to clarify.

 

[Noggin]

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.

Are the trust perhaps just aware of their limitations and want to limit discussions to ones in which they have an advantage?

This will sound harsh to the trust but I don't mean it that way, it's just what I see as reality, the trust don't have anyone who is smart enough, well informed, quick witted and confident enough to hear misleading spin from Fisher and immediately counter it with a sound argument and as such any discussion gives Fisher a big advantage, he wins even when he completely in the wrong. Fisher is able to make things sound correct and reasonable when they aren't at all (a little less so now that we know not to trust a word he says of course). Any text conversation lets the trust think about what Fisher has said and counter it accordingly, for the most part this puts them at an advantage because Fisher likely doesn't even believe alot of what he says.

There is also the fact that forcing Fisher to commit to text makes it harder to outright lie.

 

[Ian1779]

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

If the Trust model how they would expect the owners to behave it would be a start. People could argue about who should be setting the example and why should it be the Trust and I get that point, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.

The Trust would establish far more credibility as an organisation if it stopped acting just like the people it is trying to hold to account.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's not so much about asking questions of the club, as about how they're doing it which doesn't seem to be particularly productive to me. I think everyone who sits on the SCG needs to stop complaining about the rights of anyone else to sit on the panel, it's pointless bickering. Focus instead on getting the right questions to the club.

Trust: Tim are you aware that the vast majority of fans don't believe that there is any attention by the club to build a new stadium and it's all a smoke screen.

Tim: That's absolutely not the case.

Trust: OK, thanks bye.

Anything other than the above seems to be confrontational where the clubs concerned. Sounds like productive isn't an option. So IMO the trust are right to aggressively (if that's what the FOI's, public statements are) pursue the truth. Personally I find it pretty pathetic that the trust have had to resort to this in an effort to obtain the truth for it's members and the wider fan base. I can't see how they've created that scenario.

 

[duffer]

Are the trust perhaps just aware of their limitations and want to limit discussions to ones in which they have an advantage?

This will sound harsh to the trust but I don't mean it that way, it's just what I see as reality, the trust don't have anyone who is smart enough, well informed, quick witted and confident enough to hear misleading spin from Fisher and immediately counter it with a sound argument and as such any discussion gives Fisher a big advantage, he wins even when he completely in the wrong. Fisher is able to make things sound correct and reasonable when they aren't at all (a little less so now that we know not to trust a word he says of course). Any text conversation lets the trust think about what Fisher has said and counter it accordingly, for the most part this puts them at an advantage because Fisher likely doesn't even believe alot of what he says.

There is also the fact that forcing Fisher to commit to text makes it harder to outright lie.

All fair enough Noggin, but again that's an adversarial approach. I think the trust have got some pretty clever people on board, the key is just to get Fisher talking and expand on what he's saying.

This isn't a court case, you're asking him to explain what's going on, and it's not unreasonable to ask him to clarify anything that isn't clear. Sometimes the best approach is simply to ask for further explanation if you feel the wool's being pulled over your eyes. "I'm sorry, I'm probably being a bit daft here, but can you explain that bit again because I haven't really understood...", isn't easily disregarded in a 'friendly' conversation. I'd like to see if TF really would talk to someone from the trust one-to-one, or whether it was really just an excuse to avoid the question.

 

[duffer]

Trust: Tim are you aware that the vast majority of fans don't believe that there is any attention by the club to build a new stadium and it's all a smoke screen.

Tim: That's absolutely not the case.

Trust: OK, thanks bye.

Anything other than the above seems to be confrontational where the clubs concerned. Sounds like productive isn't an option. So IMO the trust are right to aggressively (if that's what the FOI's, public statements are) pursue the truth. Personally I find it pretty pathetic that the trust have had to resort to this in an effort to obtain the truth for it's members and the wider fan base. I can't see how they've created that scenario.

If you went in with that kind of approach, I'm sure that's exactly what you'd get. Personally I find it pretty amazing that you'd think otherwise.

Of course, if you weren't obsessed with picking a row just to give you a happy warm feeling that SISU really were a bunch of w*nkers etc., maybe you might get a bit further. I understand that it's a bit subtle for some, given.

 

[Godiva]

Are the trust perhaps just aware of their limitations and want to limit discussions to ones in which they have an advantage?

This will sound harsh to the trust but I don't mean it that way, it's just what I see as reality, the trust don't have anyone who is smart enough, well informed, quick witted and confident enough to hear misleading spin from Fisher and immediately counter it with a sound argument and as such any discussion gives Fisher a big advantage, he wins even when he completely in the wrong. Fisher is able to make things sound correct and reasonable when they aren't at all (a little less so now that we know not to trust a word he says of course). Any text conversation lets the trust think about what Fisher has said and counter it accordingly, for the most part this puts them at an advantage because Fisher likely doesn't even believe alot of what he says.

There is also the fact that forcing Fisher to commit to text makes it harder to outright lie.

I have put two sentences in bold:

1: I don't think the Trust need anyone with those qualifications. I believe they have a few who tries to be and that is part of the problem. What they need is someone slow, methodical, analytical and stubborn. Someone who thrives in details.

Because:

2: The Trust does not need to 'counter' anything. They need to verify! They need to deal in facts and evidence. Not in myths, hearsay and emotions.
That will make it impossible for the club management to get away with lies.

 

[skybluetony176]

If you went in with that kind of approach, I'm sure that's exactly what you'd get. Personally I find it pretty amazing that you'd think otherwise.

Of course, if you weren't obsessed with picking a row just to give you a happy warm feeling that SISU really were a bunch of w*nkers etc., maybe you might get a bit further. I understand that it's a bit subtle for some, given.

A row? I thought we were having a debate. My mistake. It doesn't give me a happy warm feeling that SISU really were a bunch of wankers etc. They "own" the football team I follow and would like to see as a success story. The only way SISU could make me feel warm is by sharing my vision for the club. The only feeling I get from SISU is a feeling of cold fear at the way they're running my club.

 

[Captain Dart]

@Godiva, you are not far wrong there, at first exposure Fishers statements often seem plausible and reasonable, but once you look carefully at what he has actually said you can often (if not always) detect the weasel words. I suppose one must give him some kudos for inventing the spin in the first place, but I prefer a more straightforward approach, if you spin nearly everything eventually everyone lacks trusts in you.

 

[Noggin]

All fair enough Noggin, but again that's an adversarial approach. I think the trust have got some pretty clever people on board, the key is just to get Fisher talking and expand on what he's saying.

This isn't a court case, you're asking him to explain what's going on, and it's not unreasonable to ask him to clarify anything that isn't clear. Sometimes the best approach is simply to ask for further explanation if you feel the wool's being pulled over your eyes. "I'm sorry, I'm probably being a bit daft here, but can you explain that bit again because I haven't really understood...", isn't easily disregarded in a 'friendly' conversation. I'd like to see if TF really would talk to someone from the trust one-to-one, or whether it was really just an excuse to avoid the question.

Talking in text doesn't need to be adversarial, I'm sure the trust do have smart people, I'm not at all suggesting they are stupid just that in a conversation with a ceo they can very easily be mislead and accept what they are told only to think hang on thats not right when given a few minutes after to think about what just happened. I consider myself a smart guy (other than my English) and in text debate with Fisher I'd rip him to pieces (not because I think I'm smarter than him but because he doesn't actually believe his own arguments) however I'm completely aware that I could very easily lose any phone discussion. I realise talk of winning and losing sounds adversarial but I don't mean it that way, if someone says something to you and you take it at face value, thank them for their time, hang up and realise that they just pulled the wool over your eyes you lost the conversation.

This isn't a court case, you're asking him to explain what's going on, and it's not unreasonable to ask him to clarify anything that isn't clear. Sometimes the best approach is simply to ask for further explanation if you feel the wool's being pulled over your eyes. "I'm sorry, I'm probably being a bit daft here, but can you explain that bit again because I haven't really understood...", isn't easily disregarded in a 'friendly' conversation. I'd like to see if TF really would talk to someone from the trust one-to-one, or whether it was really just an excuse to avoid the question.

I don't mean that they they don't understand what he says, I mean they take what he says and arn't able to realise they are being mislead instantly. we saw it in the scg minutes, the trust came out looking like they were in the wrong, it allowed reid the puppet to write an article about it. If the trust were able to compete with Fisher face to face this wouldn't have happened but they aren't and if they realise this then it's the right thing to do to make sure your discussions put you on an even keel.

 

[Noggin]

I have put two sentences in bold:

1: I don't think the Trust need anyone with those qualifications. I believe they have a few who tries to be and that is part of the problem. What they need is someone slow, methodical, analytical and stubborn. Someone who thrives in details.

Because:

2: The Trust does not need to 'counter' anything. They need to verify! They need to deal in facts and evidence. Not in myths, hearsay and emotions.
That will make it impossible for the club management to get away with lies.

Thanks I agree with all of that.

 

[Grendel]

A row? I thought we were having a debate. My mistake. It doesn't give me a happy warm feeling that SISU really were a bunch of wankers etc. They "own" the football team I follow and would like to see as a success story. The only way SISU could make me feel warm is by sharing my vision for the club. The only feeling I get from SISU is a feeling of cold fear at the way they're running my club.

Your suggested approach is confrontational.

The trust strategy has to have diplomacy. You can't just "shake a fist"
at Tim Fisher and he will hold his hands up and say "you've got me there boys"

If they want some information on the concept behind the stadium they should for a start do some background work. There are other clubs that are looking at new builds and have approval. See what their strategies are and the funding needed and timescales.

Having some knowledge then request a formal presentation from the club for its strategy. Then it should politely challenge and question - "well that's interesting but the Bristol Rovers model works like this" - "it took Scunthorpe this many years to get permission so is your timescale realistic"

They as individuals must also get out of the habit, which again came out in those minutes, that they as individuals express individual views and not the Trusts. That just will not wash.

 

[duffer]

A row? I thought we were having a debate. My mistake. It doesn't give me a happy warm feeling that SISU really were a bunch of wankers etc. They "own" the football team I follow and would like to see as a success story. The only way SISU could make me feel warm is by sharing my vision for the club. The only feeling I get from SISU is a feeling of cold fear at the way they're running my club.

Sorry, what I'm trying to say is that if you steam into a conversation with an opening line like that proposed , and then close it off immediately in the way you've portrayed it then it's clearly not going to get anywhere. It is just a row, rather than a debate. I didn't mean that you were trying to pick a row with me. We actually agree on quite a lot here, oddly enough.

 

[duffer]

Talking in text doesn't need to be adversarial, I'm sure the trust do have smart people, I'm not at all suggesting they are stupid just that in a conversation with a ceo they can very easily be mislead and accept what they are told only to think hang on thats not right when given a few minutes after to think about what just happened. I consider myself a smart guy (other than my English) and in text debate with Fisher I'd rip him to pieces (not because I think I'm smarter than him but because he doesn't actually believe his own arguments) however I'm completely aware that I could very easily lose any phone discussion. I realise talk of winning and losing sounds adversarial but I don't mean it that way, if someone says something to you and you take it at face value, thank them for their time, hang up and realise that they just pulled the wool over your eyes you lost the conversation.



I don't mean that they they don't understand what he says, I mean they take what he says and arn't able to realise they are being mislead instantly. we saw it in the scg minutes, the trust came out looking like they were in the wrong, it allowed reid the puppet to write an article about it. If the trust were able to compete with Fisher face to face this wouldn't have happened but they aren't and if they realise this then it's the right thing to do to make sure your discussions put you on an even keel.

The problem here Noggin, is that it's adversarial because you've already made your mind up that Fisher doesn't believe what he's saying (i.e. that he's lying). If that's the case, then there's perhaps really very little point in having any conversation with him, written or on the telephone - you're never going to believe what he says, so what's the point in talking about it.

Fisher, for better or worse, seems to have opened the door here to a conversation with the trust - I honestly cannot see why they wouldn't take it. You can't claim to want to engage with the club, but disregard the opportunity to do this to my mind - you can't worry about somehow being made to look bad by Fisher, this is just about trying to get answers.

 

[skybluetony176]

Your suggested approach is confrontational.

The trust strategy has to have diplomacy. You can't just "shake a fist"
at Tim Fisher and he will hold his hands up and say "you've got me there boys"

If they want some information on the concept behind the stadium they should for a start do some background work. There are other clubs that are looking at new builds and have approval. See what their strategies are and the funding needed and timescales.

Having some knowledge then request a formal presentation from the club for its strategy. Then it should politely challenge and question - "well that's interesting but the Bristol Rovers model works like this" - "it took Scunthorpe this many years to get permission so is your timescale realistic"

They as individuals must also get out of the habit, which again came out in those minutes, that they as individuals express individual views and not the Trusts. That just will not wash.

Any question is confrontational by it's very nature. Thats why it's a question.

 

[Godiva]

Any question is confrontational by it's very nature. Thats why it's a question.

'How is your daughter today?'

Or

'Can you prove she is even your daughter?'

 

[Noggin]

The problem here Noggin, is that it's adversarial because you've already made your mind up that Fisher doesn't believe what he's saying (i.e. that he's lying). If that's the case, then there's perhaps really very little point in having any conversation with him, written or on the telephone - you're never going to believe what he says, so what's the point in talking about it.

Fisher, for better or worse, seems to have opened the door here to a conversation with the trust - I honestly cannot see why they wouldn't take it. You can't claim to want to engage with the club, but disregard the opportunity to do this to my mind - you can't worry about somehow being made to look bad by Fisher, this is just about trying to get answers.

I have made up my mind about Fisher backed up with plenty of evidence and I have no desire to liase with him but I'm not talking about me and I don't think it's adversarial to acknowledge your shortcomings and to want to communicate on a platform that gives you an even keel. In any conversation where one side has the gift of the gab you should take precautions so as not to be mislead especially when that person has a reputation for doing that.

It's not about being worried about being made to look bad, my example from the scg was to show that the trust aren't getting to the facts because they aren't able to respond properly to fisher, he got the better of them, they looked bad even though on the face of it there was little wrong with their position.

If Fisher really is willing to talk but isn't willing to talk in text then he wasn't worth talking to anyway.

New computer just arrived time to go set it up.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Interesting and curious that the most of this thread about the SCG has been about what the Trust could do better or got wrong or have closed doors :thinking about: we become distracted from the real issues don't we ..... me included :facepalm: But I guess that's the point isn't it

When was the last time Mr Fisher answered any probing or challenging questions properly from anyone regarding the new stadium or CCFC. He has of late given prepared statements or provided "briefings" in the unchallenging arena of the SCG but that's about it. Better still if he is asked perhaps he could respond in a clear detailed and unambiguous way without resorting to jargon or changing the subject

It cannot be easy to deal with such a person over the months and years, must be hard to keep patient calm and focussed when football is so emotive. Cant help thinking some rely on precisely that difficulty

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

They as individuals must also get out of the habit, which again came out in those minutes, that they as individuals express individual views and not the Trusts. That just will not wash.

As I recall, the only example of this was a comment from Jan, who also clarified that he was no longer a member of the SBT Board.

As an "ordinary member" of the Trust, I don't see how he could claim to speak on behalf of them.

 

[Grendel]

As I recall, the only example of this was a comment from Jan, who also clarified that he was no longer a member of the SBT Board.

As an "ordinary member" of the Trust, I don't see how he could claim to speak on behalf of them.

Others have done it particularly in regard to attending wasps rallies - it'sy choice to support the franchise team and isn't trust policy.

If a UKIP MP attended a KKK rally do you think he would stay in his job?

 

[skybluetony176]

Others have done it particularly in regard to attending wasps rallies - it'sy choice to support the franchise team and isn't trust policy.

If a UKIP MP attended a KKK rally do you think he would stay in his job?

If you went to a led zeppelin concert does that mean you should burn everything you own by marillion?

 

[Captain Dart]

Others have done it particularly in regard to attending wasps rallies - it'sy choice to support the franchise team and isn't trust policy.

If a UKIP MP attended a KKK rally do you think he would stay in his job?

Sure, as long as he wasn't found out.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Others have done it particularly in regard to attending wasps rallies - it'sy choice to support the franchise team and isn't trust policy.

If a UKIP MP attended a KKK rally do you think he would stay in his job?

Not sure I know what a "Wasps rally" is/was.

I'm not sure that a person expressing a point of view in a meeting from a personal standpoint, differentiating that from an official statement of the agreed position of an organisation representing the supporters of a football club can really be equated to an MP attending a rally of an overtly racist organisation.

 

[Grendel]

Not sure I know what a "Wasps rally" is/was.

I'm not sure that a person expressing a point of view in a meeting from a personal standpoint, differentiating that from an official statement of the agreed position of an organisation representing the supporters of a football club can really be equated to an MP attending a rally of an overtly racist organisation.

For rally it is supposed to say games so don't know how that happened.

However, the comparison is;

SBT senior members make public statements regarding CCFC being franchised out of the City but as individuals believe attendance at a Franchise Sport team is not contradictory.

In the same way an MP who would be keen to denounce the accusation a party is racist but as an individual attends a racist rally.

 

[dongonzalos]

Not sure I know what a "Wasps rally" is/was.

I'm not sure that a person expressing a point of view in a meeting from a personal standpoint, differentiating that from an official statement of the agreed position of an organisation representing the supporters of a football club can really be equated to an MP attending a rally of an overtly racist organisation.

Funny

I have seems some great attempts by Grendel at derailing threads and taking them off topic. Especially when the thread starts going down the route of we need to ask some serious questions about SISU's future plans

However the Klu Klux Klan is a new level even for Grendel.

Anyway anyone feel that the SCG are not asking the important questions the fans want answering?

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

For rally it is supposed to say games so don't know how that happened.

However, the comparison is;

SBT senior members make public statements regarding CCFC being franchised out of the City but as individuals believe attendance at a Franchise Sport team is not contradictory.

In the same way an MP who would be keen to denounce the accusation a party is racist but as an individual attends a racist rally.

I don't recall that incident/statement, so it's difficult to comment.

I would agree that it would be preferable if all "SBT senior members" (I assume that means Board/committee members) didn't make statements that contradicted Trust policy, but this is an organisation representing football fans, that people give up their time for on a voluntary basis. I don't believe that it is reasonable to apply the standards that you would apply to an MP.

 

[dongonzalos]

I am just glad Jan is there I feel that if I send him a question he will ask it.
I thought it was a shame when the SCG were asked to open a thread on here for supporters to ask question. They saw engaging with the fans as dangerous.

 

[Grendel]

Funny

I have seems some great attempts by Grendel at derailing threads and taking them off topic. Especially when the thread starts going down the route of we need to ask some serious questions about SISU's future plans

However the Klu Klux Klan is a new level even for Grendel.

Anyway anyone feel that the SCG are not asking the important questions the fans want answering?

Once again you miss the point which the far more mature DTD acknowledges.

The Trust cannot publically criticise a sports club moving 35 miles and then have its Board members exclaiming the virtues of a club moving 85 miles.

The comparison is wholly appropriate

 

[Grendel]

Your suggested approach is confrontational.

The trust strategy has to have diplomacy. You can't just "shake a fist"
at Tim Fisher and he will hold his hands up and say "you've got me there boys"

If they want some information on the concept behind the stadium they should for a start do some background work. There are other clubs that are looking at new builds and have approval. See what their strategies are and the funding needed and timescales.

Having some knowledge then request a formal presentation from the club for its strategy. Then it should politely challenge and question - "well that's interesting but the Bristol Rovers model works like this" - "it took Scunthorpe this many years to get permission so is your timescale realistic"

QUOTE]

Funny

I have seems some great attempts by Grendel at derailing threads and taking them off topic. Especially when the thread starts going down the route of we need to ask some serious questions about SISU's future plans

However the Klu Klux Klan is a new level even for Grendel.

Anyway anyone feel that the SCG are not asking the important questions the fans want answering?

Like the ones I raised in this thread you mean?

 

[dongonzalos]

Once again you miss the point which the far more mature DTD acknowledges.

The Trust cannot publically criticise a sports club moving 35 miles and then have its Board members exclaiming the virtues of a club moving 85 miles.

The comparison is wholly as always extreme and inappropriate

 

[Grendel]

Once again Dongle has no counter argument.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I am just glad Jan is there I feel that if I send him a question he will ask it.
I thought it was a shame when the SCG were asked to open a thread on here for supporters to ask question. They saw engaging with the fans as dangerous.

Not quite true Don, they seemed more apprehensive about engaging with idiots who would sidetrack the thread. Although this could easily have been pre-moderated.

 

[dongonzalos]

Not quite true Don, they seemed more apprehensive about engaging with idiots who would sidetrack the thread. Although this could easily have been pre-moderated.

Easily......

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

As I recall, the only example of this was a comment from Jan, who also clarified that he was no longer a member of the SBT Board.

As an "ordinary member" of the Trust, I don't see how he could claim to speak on behalf of them.

To be fair Steve has also done it, clarifying that the views were his and not of the Trust, and he is currently Trust President is he not?