It's not on their agenda for the current owners to be back playing at the Ricoh.
Despite what they may say, they'll not be happy about this.
They wanted/want the club distressed to put pressure on the owners to go. A very poorly thought out plan.
They would have happily seen the club go tothe wall if it meant the owners going. They could have then had their little dream of a Phoenix club playing at the Ricoh with their mates Wasps, but in the Midland Alliance amongst the likes of Sphinx and Cov United.
They'll be spitting feathers and it wouldnt surprise me if they are meeting with their council influences as we speak to see what they could do.
Yes, I'm a bitter cynic, but that is what those two parties have led me to be over the years!!
Let’s give them a chance and see how they do over the next 12 months*
*repeat every 12 months.
Just let them do them. Not sure they have much significance any more (although I'm sure someone will interview them over the next few days).
No doubt that the members of the trust I met with Dave Eyles and a few others that they were huge fans and wanted what’s best for the club. Think they were of one mind as to the dangers of Sisu and everyone associated with them. It’s a little nuanced for me but I don’t doubt their desire for the success of our club
The only point of the SBT has ever been of the future of the club is threatened
I don’t agree with his opinions or the way he has gone about it but he wants a successful ccfc yep no questionJust so I'm clear, this is the same David Eyles that:
Encouraged boycotters, claiming he would never go to games, even at the Ricoh, under SISU (until he was found out)?
Welcomed & enabled the likes of Kalns, Johnson, Bird etc? Allowed Kalns to set up parody social media accounts mocking the club & it's supporters? When it was pointed out they denied it (Until being found out).
Intentionally tried to divide the fanbase with his "Scab" & "tearing families apart" comments to the national press?
Constantly criticises the owners on how they run the club, stating that the Trust need to have a stake in it but can't even get his own organisation to follow their own Constitution?
You genuinely think he has the clubs best interests at heart?
The scenario they tried to create you mean?
No doubt that the members of the trust I met with Dave Eyles and a few others that they were huge fans and wanted what’s best for the club. I don’t doubt their desire for the success of our club
I think you’re being a little ungenerous. No one sinks a significant portion of their free time into the club if they don’t care about it.
I don’t know specifically what you’re referring to as is often the case in these discussions, but I doubt anyone was trying to threaten the existence of the club.
People on both sides of the argument thought and think their way is the only way and the opposite way would kill the club. I don’t see the benefit on carrying on grudges between fans for decades to be perfectly honest.
I don’t agree with his opinions or the way he has gone about it but he wants a successful ccfc yep no question
The Kalns stuff is what happens when you only talk to people who speak like you and think like you and hate like you. Echo chambers are so dangerous.
As a group on the supporters forum he has been much more balanced and conciliatory
The day they elected John Fletcher effectively set the mould of weaponising the trust as a political tool to support a council agenda against any interests in the football club regardless of actual supporter opinion. It’s never recovered from that
This is a thread on the trust and it’s been ruined since the day he was elected and we had the dumbass fiasco of Haskell - aren’t we allowed to discuss this on the forum?
Yeah, but you know the reaction you're going to get. You are well aware he has relatives on here. You know it's going to be emotive. But more than anything it's just going round the same arguments yet again, but crack on. Whatever makes you happy.
Yeah, but you know the reaction you're going to get. You are well aware he has relatives on here. You know it's going to be emotive. But more than anything it's just going round the same arguments yet again, but crack on. Whatever makes you happy.
Just so I'm clear, this is the same David Eyles that:
Encouraged boycotters, claiming he would never go to games, even at the Ricoh, under SISU (until he was found out)?
Welcomed & enabled the likes of Kalns, Johnson, Bird etc? Allowed Kalns to set up parody social media accounts mocking the club & it's supporters? When it was pointed out they denied it (Until being found out).
Intentionally tried to divide the fanbase with his "Scab" & "tearing families apart" comments to the national press?
Constantly criticises the owners on how they run the club, stating that the Trust need to have a stake in it but can't even get his own organisation to follow their own Constitution?
You genuinely think he has the clubs best interests at heart?
This, not only did they split the fanbase - they vilified those who thought differently. They’re a toxic organisation - as @Grendel said, as soon as a council man was elected the neutrality disappearedThe way I see it... The sky blues trust split the fanbase, which isn't what a trust is designed to do, Infact its easy to believe they are more disliked than liked .. Therefore they are redundant in many ways and need to disband
Sorry... Perhaps I shouldn't have started the thread. I had meant to raise it a little while ago as I was intrigued how their survey went etc but they seemed to have just ceased all activity. Then obviously today the biggest news in ages breaks & they're still nowhere to be seen, that reminded me to ask the question.
Sorry... Perhaps I shouldn't have started the thread. I had meant to raise it a little while ago as I was intrigued how their survey went etc but they seemed to have just ceased all activity. Then obviously today the biggest news in ages breaks & they're still nowhere to be seen, that reminded me to ask the question.
Nah, we do need to talk about the trust so this thread is fine. It's just some folk like to go looking for drama.
The trust may as well not exist anymore. Is there anyway they can not be the "official" supporters group?
I'm pretty sure this Dave guy has not long taken over? I don't think he was involved when all o lf this happened.
They never have been "official". What they were quite good at was getting the ear of the press (to be fair, some of the aforementioned public figures probably helped in that respect).
Dave Eyles and dave boddy were respectful and able to discuss issues and questions at the supporters forumThey are the ones recognised by the FSF are they not?
No doubt that the members of the trust I met with Dave Eyles and a few others that they were huge fans and wanted what’s best for the club. Think they were of one mind as to the dangers of Sisu and everyone associated with them. It’s a little nuanced for me but I don’t doubt their desire for the success of our club
For sure - sorryYou’ve done some great stuff Pete and I wholeheartedly applaud you for it, but can’t help feel you can be a tad naive at times
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For sure - sorry
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?