So why all the 'protest' BS again?
It seems to me that there is an element, indeed a real possibility we could be coming back to the Ricoh under a temporary deal of some kind. It's all a bit hush hush and as the OP suggested there are a couple of dates with obstacles to overcome that seem a forgone conclusion and then a deal seems likely.
So why all the 'protest' BS again? I'm sick of the suggestion. Get over it and simply support the message for once that both sides may have a coming together by the end of next week. Then if either side (Otium or ACL) want to refute or dispute any of it and continue with their indifference, then open the flood gates of protest and make sure it's aimed at the ones causing the indifference.
I'll hold my breath until then and I suggest all you do-gooders and protesters do the same. "Protest against SISU investors"...really? What planet are you on with this little crusade anyway?
Just wait and see what happens next. Sounds like we may have come full circle and both sides need to make some sort of deal. Here's hoping and I'll believe it when I see it.
nice try. i love my football club enough tho to make a short term sacrifice in the hope of long term gain. sisu will not get me to northampton under any circumstances whatsoever. thanks
kcic statement certainly suggested that they were stopping protests at the request of the trust, because the trust didn't believe it would be helpful after you had met Seppala.
https://www.facebook.com/KeepCovInC...8571966556656/681434878603696/?type=1&theater
Did I miss the report of the meeting with Seppala? Anyone got a link?
You think this is a short term sacrifice and I thought Ken was deluded.
It seems to me that there is an element, indeed a real possibility we could be coming back to the Ricoh under a temporary deal of some kind. It's all a bit hush hush and as the OP suggested there are a couple of dates with obstacles to overcome that seem a forgone conclusion and then a deal seems likely.
So why all the 'protest' BS again? I'm sick of the suggestion. Get over it and simply support the message for once that both sides may have a coming together by the end of next week. Then if either side (Otium or ACL) want to refute or dispute any of it and continue with their indifference, then open the flood gates of protest and make sure it's aimed at the ones causing the indifference.
I'll hold my breath until then and I suggest all you do-gooders and protesters do the same. "Protest against SISU investors"...really? What planet are you on with this little crusade anyway?
Just wait and see what happens next. Sounds like we may have come full circle and both sides need to make some sort of deal. Here's hoping and I'll believe it when I see it.
I understand that. But surely one match would make a point. If it doesn't at least we tried it.
This 'is' the game to miss. The lads will understand.
... the OP suggested there are a couple of dates with obstacles to overcome that seem a forgone conclusion and then a deal seems likely.
So why all the 'protest' BS again?
it is something we can help influence tho if everyone stuck together and firm on it. im sticking by my morals thanks
I fail to see how protesting from the Hill would compromise your morals. It doesn't help Sisu at all, financially or otherwise. But I'm sure that you and your morals will have a nice evening watching on TV.
Now, I went to that Trust meeting, and it certainly wasn't that they were stopping protests because the trust had met Seppala. Those two statements are both true (well, in terms of the fact members of the trust had met Seppala), and were both said at that meeting... but it certainly wasn't cause and effect!
Fair enough. But was there a report of the Seppala meeting? Or was it reported at the Trust meeting? Just wondering what happened.
Not really bothered about the resolution, was a bit ranty from the start. Though as with everything in this shitstorm, there's a need to keep the ranty from ranting at you because you didn't look like you were listening to the rants. If that makes sense.
Bump.
Only the SBT committee know, as far as I can tell, no details of the meeting have been put online and no mention of it was made in the SBT AGM minutes, despite both NW and Michael Orton saying it was discussed there.
I asked if Jan or Steve could comment, they have not replied, somehow I don't expect they will, you can decide for yourself why that is.
Jack - there was a meeting with Seppala - the meeting itself wasn't discussed at the AGM but it was brought up by a former board member who had decided to make an issue of the fact that he hadn't been invited to attend. Those attending the meeting were asked by SISU to keep the details of the meeting private, which they have done. The exact line from the AGM minutes describing the matter was "A Member asked that the Trust Board should consider adopting a protocol whereby all Board members should be informed about any proposed external meetings." THis matter will be discussed at the next TRust Board meeting next Monday and minutes of that meeting will be available shortly afterwards.
Just when we were getting a good Conspiracy Theory started!!!
Jack - there was a meeting with Seppala - the meeting itself wasn't discussed at the AGM but it was brought up by a former board member who had decided to make an issue of the fact that he hadn't been invited to attend. Those attending the meeting were asked by SISU to keep the details of the meeting private, which they have done. The exact line from the AGM minutes describing the matter was "A Member asked that the Trust Board should consider adopting a protocol whereby all Board members should be informed about any proposed external meetings." THis matter will be discussed at the next TRust Board meeting next Monday and minutes of that meeting will be available shortly afterwards.
Jack - there was a meeting with Seppala - the meeting itself wasn't discussed at the AGM but it was brought up by a former board member who had decided to make an issue of the fact that he hadn't been invited to attend. Those attending the meeting were asked by SISU to keep the details of the meeting private, which they have done. The exact line from the AGM minutes describing the matter was "A Member asked that the Trust Board should consider adopting a protocol whereby all Board members should be informed about any proposed external meetings." THis matter will be discussed at the next TRust Board meeting next Monday and minutes of that meeting will be available shortly afterwards.
Just when we were getting a good Conspiracy Theory started!!!
Some of the paranoia on here is ludcirous.
Jack - there was a meeting with Seppala - the meeting itself wasn't discussed at the AGM but it was brought up by a former board member who had decided to make an issue of the fact that he hadn't been invited to attend. Those attending the meeting were asked by SISU to keep the details of the meeting private, which they have done. The exact line from the AGM minutes describing the matter was "A Member asked that the Trust Board should consider adopting a protocol whereby all Board members should be informed about any proposed external meetings." THis matter will be discussed at the next TRust Board meeting next Monday and minutes of that meeting will be available shortly afterwards.
It's sort of perverse to criticise folk for paranoia or conspiracy theories when even the fans body is seemingly meeting and not even telling it's members that meetings are taking place, let alone any content. That's exactly the atmosphere in which conjecture will become wild
OP three critical days Wednesday 14th Thursday 14th and Friday 15th? Yes a new calendar two 14th's to avoid that unlucky day 13th!
Somewhere in there is a football match.
Maybe some transfer activity?
In such a critical week we are just into Monday and already CET have restrictions put on their live press releases. It's going to be a week for conspiracy theories, doom merchants and some optimistic twaddle for the sake of balance.
Hold on to your hats a keen wind is blowing out there.
Jack and Noggin - A board is elected to represent its members as best it can - there will be occasions where a stance has to be taken which not everyone is going to agree with or like etc. However the Trust is a democratic organisation and there are places up for election to the SBT board in October. If you are Trust members you are more than welcome to stand for election and help us make better decisions.
What and get some idiotic online malcontent idiot critisising my every move, no thanks.
It did tell its members, hence I know.
Maybe more need to actually turn up to the meetings? It ties in to some of the posts on here that it's all very well bitching about it, but there can be some doing too. Someone who goes to Sixfields said to me that the 'hillers' had won his respect because they were always there, rain or shine, and had shown they care.
Isn't that the kind of message that's better served, rather than the sound of fury, signifying nothing? Isn't it better to show a message that we all care, but are divided not through our choice?
But no, time and time again it reduces to the petty.
It's sort of perverse to look for drama in a desire, a need for crisis.
And Jan has come back swiftly enough here too, what more is he expected to do? Make up some content to satisfy the need for a good crisis?
But this habitual high-handed knocking of discontent - given the landscape before us - as above, really is tiresome
The hypocrisy there is truly astonishing, given your recent approach to hectoring long windedness.
I don't see any hypocrisy in that whatsoever
The hypocrisy there is truly astonishing, given your recent approach to hectoring long windedness.
I found out by going to the meeting. It was a nothing statement within the meeting and I, frankly, thought nothing of it afterwards. Personally I would hope that the default setting is the Trust talk to people involved with CCFC, I don't expect that to be a revelation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?