Latest Trust Email (1 Viewer)

[SkyBlueSwiss]

The only thing is that it comes across that you have to go to the pub or to a protest to get your point heard, there are probably 95% of the members of the trust who can't or don't want to go to things like that but still want to have a say.
/?
If it isn't possible on the Trust site, I'd be happy to add a Trust section on here for discussions that is view able for Trust members only to help with communication?

I didn't know I has a user name and login for the Trust. How do I find out what they are?

 

---

[Nick]

I didn't know I has a user name and login for the Trust. How do I find out what they are?

If you registered online then on the homepage do a forgotten password request at the bottom on the left

I am not sure if you signed up on paper, although it isn't hard for the site administrators to bang them in a spreadsheet and create bulk accounts.

 

[torchomatic]

Thanks Jan. I understand and fully back the Keep Cov In Cov campaign as I'm sure all fans do. However, the NOPM campaign confuses me as a lot of fans say this is their stance regardless of whether we keep "Cov In Cov". NOPM will harm the club not help it. It won't force SISU out as they seem perfectly willing to take losses and run up debt.

Torchy - the Trust took the view that the concept of NOPM was a good one but it had no clear direction and by the Trust taking control it now has that direction and it is Keep Cov In Cov, nothing more or less but Keep Cov In Cov - hope that explains it - Not One Penny More until it is confirmed that Cov will be playing at the Ricoh next season.

 

[ashbyjan]

The only thing is that it comes across that you have to go to the pub or to a protest to get your point heard, there are probably 95% of the members of the trust who can't or don't want to go to things like that but still want to have a say.
/?
If it isn't possible on the Trust site, I'd be happy to add a Trust section on here for discussions that is view able for Trust members only to help with communication?

It is not necessary to come to the Squirrel to get your message heard - simply email the Trust with your views http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/contacts/12-contacts/2-general-enquiries Every email is read and responded to, as you can imagine there's a lot of emails to get through but every one is appreciated and its contents noted and discussed. Also we do look at the various forums, newspapers, radio media etc to gauge general feelings. We even pop on to have a discussion from time to time!

 

[chiefdave]

we will go back to the membership and ask how they wish the Trust to respond - if they vote for us to work with the club to make the best of a bad job then that is what we will do, if they vote for us to organise boycotts, protests etc then that is the direction we will take. The Trust is there to serve its members wishes not the other way round.

how do these votes work? Do you need a certain % of all memebers of the trust to vote in favour of something or just a majority of those who respond?

If it's the later what % of total membership voted that the trust should refuse to speak to SISU in the last vote?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It is not necessary to come to the Squirrel to get your message heard - simply email the Trust with your views http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/contacts/12-contacts/2-general-enquiries Every email is read and responded to, as you can imagine there's a lot of emails to get through but every one is appreciated and its contents noted and discussed. Also we do look at the various forums, newspapers, radio media etc to gauge general feelings. We even pop on to have a discussion from time to time!

Which is fair enough Jan, although your letters could use a little proof reading

 

[chiefdave]

Jan - I totally understand that it has to be what the members want, is there no way when having the polls more information could be taken from the members rather than a "yes" or "no". It is a bit vague and if asking "do you want action to be taken?" it is a bit of a broad spectrum, it is like hiring a hitman for Sisu employees and then saying "but the members wanted action". Can it not be polled as to what sort of action?

I don't see why it has to be as clear cut as a yes or no with things like this.

Anyone who's ever been involved with market research will tell you all about phrasing of questions to push towards the answer you want. Can't remember what the initial question was that approved the Trusts course of action but I do recall thinking it wasn't the most balanced question! If I recall it also didn't give much scope for options, for example there was no way to say you didn't support a move, rtemp or otherwise, outside of Cov but that the trust should still maintain communication with SISU.

Have the trust spoken with ACL? The last public statement from them regarding SISU was that they would no longer speak to them. TF also said they refused to discuss CCFC staying there whilst a new stadium was built. Surely if the Trust is against the club moving out of the city they should also be putting pressure on ACL to publically state their position with regard to SISU.

 

[ashbyjan]

Dave - we spoke with ACL a week or so ago and their current stance is they are offering the ground for free to the club (whoever the owners are) whilst it is in administration. They have also indicated to us that they are willing to open discussions further to the admin period again with whoever the owners are - they basically want/need (delete as you feel applicable) the club at the Ricoh, as many of us do. We have asked ACL to make this clearer in their public pronouncements but their legal people, in light of no final decision over ownership and the JR hanging over them, to be careful with public declarations. The intransigence appears to be coming for Tim Fisher and therefore there appears to be little point in putting extra pressure on ACL as they are doing what we would want them to be doing.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Dave - we spoke with ACL a week or so ago and their current stance is they are offering the ground for free to the club (whoever the owners are) whilst it is in administration. They have also indicated to us that they are willing to open discussions further to the admin period again with whoever the owners are - they basically want/need (delete as you feel applicable) the club at the Ricoh, as many of us do. We have asked ACL to make this clearer in their public pronouncements. The intransigence appears to be coming for Tim Fisher and therefore there appears to be little point in putting extra pressure on ACL as they are doing what we would want them to be doing.

Isn't that offer as meaningless as anything Fisher/SISU say though? We offer it rent free while in admin, and will discuss what happens post admin is effectively trying to tie the club in to no choice than to play there, however those discussions go, isn't it?

Surely there are more appropriate statements they could make to back the club into a corner and force them to talk?

 

[ashbyjan]

Thanks Jan. I understand and fully back the Keep Cov In Cov campaign as I'm sure all fans do. However, the NOPM campaign confuses me as a lot of fans say this is their stance regardless of whether we keep "Cov In Cov". NOPM will harm the club not help it. It won't force SISU out as they seem perfectly willing to take losses and run up debt.

There are some who will think that they can starve SISU out and they are entitled to that opinion however NOPM is now not aimed at that but simply at keeping Cov In Cov. It will take a bit of time for people to realise the change but NOPM has a new direction and aim.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

There are some who will think that they can starve SISU out and they are entitled to that opinion however NOPM is now not aimed at that but simply at keeping Cov In Cov. It will take a bit of time for people to realise the change but NOPM has a new direction and aim.

Do we know where all of the club's non footballing staff are now based? Can't be that much space at Ryton.

 

[Nick]

Again Jan, by saying "Not One Penny More" it sounds as it if it is to starve the club of money, by not giving them any? Surely you should just stick with calling it "keep coventry in coventry" which kind of means what it sounds like?

It is like saying there is a campaign called "kick stray dogs" but it doesn't actually involve kicking stray dogs.

 

[crowsnest]

Dave - we spoke with ACL a week or so ago and their current stance is they are offering the ground for free to the club (whoever the owners are) whilst it is in administration. They have also indicated to us that they are willing to open discussions further to the admin period again with whoever the owners are - they basically want/need (delete as you feel applicable) the club at the Ricoh, as many of us do.We have asked ACL to make this clearer in their public pronouncements but their legal people, in light of no final decision over ownership and the JR hanging over them, to be careful with public declarations. The intransigence appears to be coming for Tim Fisher and therefore there appears to be little point in putting extra pressure on ACL as they are doing what we would want them to be doing.

So why didn't the sky blue trust say something - instead of continuing the protests against Fisher.

How can Fisher keep the club in Coventry if ACL are not willing to talk?

Why are you holding a protest at the Ricoh against Fisher, but still no protest against ACL?

Who has given you permission to hold the protest next Saturday - as it is private land?

 

[ashbyjan]

Isn't that offer as meaningless as anything Fisher/SISU say though? We offer it rent free while in admin, and will discuss what happens post admin is effectively trying to tie the club in to no choice than to play there, however those discussions go, isn't it?

Surely there are more appropriate statements they could make to back the club into a corner and force them to talk?

As I said they are currently hamstrung in making statements by their legal people - what they have stated publically that they are willing to let club play at the Ricoh for free while in admin and have indicated that they are happy to discuss a new deal for the period after that - not quite sure what more they can do?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

As I said they are currently hamstrung in making statements by their legal people - what they have stated publically that they are willing to let club play at the Ricoh for free while in admin and have indicated that they are happy to discuss a new deal for the period after that - not quite sure what more they can do?

Personally... and I accept there will be many holes to pick in this also, especially as I'm thinking on my feet (fingers?)...

I'd be publicly committing to binding arbitration, and saying the offer is there to play at the Ricoh until the results of that arbitration are concluded, with rental payment backdated after the results to the start of this season.

I'd be saying if the club want to discuss a permanent deal in that arbitration, or merely a three year deal, either option was available as a starting point.

And I would be offering a number of dates where the meeting could be convened.

However, I'd be looking for a statement, if they must make a statement, that says more than, effectively, they can play at the Ricoh free next week. I don't see what that serves in the slightest.

 

[wingy]

Personally... and I accept there will be many holes to pick in this also, especially as I'm thinking on my feet (fingers?)...

I'd be publicly committing to binding arbitration, and saying the offer is there to play at the Ricoh until the results of that arbitration are concluded, with rental payment backdated after the results to the start of this season.

I'd be saying if the club want to discuss a permanent deal in that arbitration, or merely a three year deal, either option was available as a starting point.

And I would be offering a number of dates where the meeting could be convened.

However, I'd be looking for a statement, if they must make a statement, that says more than, effectively, they can play at the Ricoh free next week. I don't see what that serves in the slightest.

Then for that to happen I think the Club should withdraw the JR first.

 

[gary_ccfcforever]

Swiss send me a PM with your Name and E-mail address and i will send an email from the system with your details

 

[letsallsingtogether]

So you would trust sisu to pay any monies owed they don't have a very good record on that front don't believe that sisu want this resolved that way they can blame others as is their way ?
Don't get me wrong want us to play at the Ricoh so we can all start talking Football again instead of all this crap starting to get a bit tedious know

Personally... and I accept there will be many holes to pick in this also, especially as I'm thinking on my feet (fingers?)...

I'd be publicly committing to binding arbitration, and saying the offer is there to play at the Ricoh until the results of that arbitration are concluded, with rental payment backdated after the results to the start of this season.

I'd be saying if the club want to discuss a permanent deal in that arbitration, or merely a three year deal, either option was available as a starting point.

And I would be offering a number of dates where the meeting could be convened.

However, I'd be looking for a statement, if they must make a statement, that says more than, effectively, they can play at the Ricoh free next week. I don't see what that serves in the slightest.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

don't believe that sisu want this resolved that way they can blame others as is their way ?

Which is why if true it's important to give them as little wriggle room as possible, and a meaningles statement about rent free while in admin doesn't help that, as it gives plenty of wriggle room.

 

[Matty_CCFC]

Thanks for feedback Jan

 

[jesus-wept]

It isn't a meaningless statement at all. While the club is in administration it is run by Paul Appleton the administrator, once out of administration it is owned by someone then it is up to that owner what they want to do and open up negotiations with ACL if it wants to. We were in administration for the last three home games last season and Appleton did the deal to play at the Ricoh. It's not rocket science

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It is meaningless, as if we come out of administration next week the offer is not there.

Therefore the people who are bringing us out of administration need to do a deal for where we play all season. Where we play next week is totally irrelevant, we don't even need a stadium at the moment! It adds nothing and is a cheap publicity shot, rather than an attempt to move the situation on.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

True see where your coming from now

Which is why if true it's important to give them as little wriggle room as possible, and a meaningles statement about rent free while in admin doesn't help that, as it gives plenty of wriggle room.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Will CCFC Ltd will come out of administration in time for the start of the season?

I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[wingy]

It is meaningless, as if we come out of administration next week the offer is not there.

Therefore the people who are bringing us out of administration need to do a deal for where we play all season. Where we play next week is totally irrelevant, we don't even need a stadium at the moment! It adds nothing and is a cheap publicity shot, rather than an attempt to move the situation on.

Not entirely is it?? if we end up continuing in admin. I think the FL need to see us with a ground to play in ,the Club need to sell ST's Merchandise. The JR needs Dropping before ACL can offer the whole of the olive Branch.

 

[chiefdave]

As I said they are currently hamstrung in making statements by their legal people - what they have stated publically that they are willing to let club play at the Ricoh for free while in admin and have indicated that they are happy to discuss a new deal for the period after that - not quite sure what more they can do?

Very simple, a statement saying they will allow any owner, including SISU, to play the 2013/14 on the same terms as the last 3 games of last season as a temp arrangement giving them 12 months to agree a permanent new deal with the owner.

They should also make a statement on if they will consider a short lease while a new stadium is being built.

If, as many suggest, TF is being at best misleading when he talks about ACL they need to be stronger in their reaction. No response at all just makes it look like they aren't disputing what TF has said. If TF version of events is incorrect why not say so, or take legal action to stop him. It doesn't look very good to other potential customers of ACL to have TF making these statements and ACL not responding.

To be honest I can't see any legal reason they can't make a statement like that, how would it have any impact on the JR?

 

[chiefdave]

Will CCFC Ltd will come out of administration in time for the start of the season?

What about a scenario where we come out of admin the day before the season starts and SISU have assumed ACL will allow them to play at the Ricoh only for ACL to say no you can't and SISU don't have a contingency? ACL has to make a statement clarifying their position.

We can all jump up and down and say the club should stay in Coventry and get on to the FL etc but if you look at the statements made by both sides publically as soon as SISU take the club back over the offer to play at the Ricoh goes and we have no ground.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

There are some who will think that they can starve SISU out and they are entitled to that opinion however NOPM is now not aimed at that but simply at keeping Cov In Cov. It will take a bit of time for people to realise the change but NOPM has a new direction and aim.

What was wrong with the keep city in Coventry campaign/petition that the telegraph started?

By taking on the campaign 'Not one penny more' you are just encouraging those who think they can force SISU out by damaging the club regardless of where we are playing

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

What about a scenario where we come out of admin the day before the season starts and SISU have assumed ACL will allow them to play at the Ricoh only for ACL to say no you can't and SISU don't have a contingency? ACL has to make a statement clarifying their position.

We can all jump up and down and say the club should stay in Coventry and get on to the FL etc but if you look at the statements made by both sides publically as soon as SISU take the club back over the offer to play at the Ricoh goes and we have no ground.

The offer of rent free goes not the offer to play there

 

[_brian_]

Just read through this entire thread and I'm a little confused! I know there are a lot of members on this board, but it would help if people could advise if they are a member before making a post so I could at least read their post knowing that their opinion is one of a member. Thanks in advance!

 

[chiefdave]

The offer of rent free goes not the offer to play there

That's my point, ACL are only saying we can play there while in admin. if SISU don't make other plans and then ACL won't talk to them we can't complete our fixtures. A clear statement from ACL puts the ball back in SISUs court and would leave them having to refuse to play at the Ricoh where at the moment they can claim ACL won't let them play there and ACL aren't saying any different.

 

[simple_simon]

Good point Chiefdave.
Who wants to go to ruddy Walsall?