One for Rob S and the Trust? (3 Viewers)

SkyblueBazza · Jun 3, 2014

Covstu said:
Hmm i would agree slightly with AndreasB view. KCIC was always an entity that i understood and to the main followed however this has slightly moved to a merge between KCIC and NOPM which references to getting SISU out, not wanting the new ground (what happens if it is in Cov city centre?) etc. My understanding of KCIC at the start was to just purely get us back to Coventry (as the title suggests) not battling on all fronts?

I believe the emphasis of the 'mission' has changed and the message got a little muddy...

Just my opinion of course!!

Exactly my point - mission has changed from KCIC to "Return Coventry to Ricoh" (I agree that is a logical place to play), & expanded to what is essentially a "SISU out" one as well. Just because some (myself excluded) are not bothered whether SISU continue or not doesn't make them "pro-SISU" which the OPer's response seemed to suggest to me.

Mixed & confusing messages all-round.

What we all would benefit from is a clear concise mission...& a clear focus on it happening. Whilst Alzheimer's & others are good & worthy causes - they're irrelevant to the main mission.

PUSB

MichaelCCFC · Jun 3, 2014

covmark said:
I don't have a problem with them owning the Ricoh, the way round their untrustworthyness (is that a word?) is to make sure there are caveats in place to make sure the club and stadium stay united. I think its Godiva that says the Ricoh should be under the SBS&L umbrella, that for me would be fine. IMO if SISU had the club and the stadium to sell we would get rid of them quicker, this is what everyone wants isn't it?

I wish everyone on here was as clear as this! Selling with caveats/conditions is a definite option. But is there any indication sisu would accept that? Isn't there someone on here who regularly says Tim Fisher has said any ground would be owned by a separate company? Would there still be a trust issue eg would the team benefit from match day revenues?

shmmeee · Jun 3, 2014

Personally I don't think we should play the blame game at all. Focus on what's ahead: make sure we are engaged on any new stadium, certainly make sure the new stadium is in an acceptable location (whatever that might end up meaning) and certainly pressure everyone to bring us home ASAP while things are sorted either way.

Beyond that you're picking sides. Which I think is fine if, as Michael suggests, you're not trying to be all things to all people.

All the evidence I've seen/heard (comment threads on various sites, others talking about our situation, talking to other fans) suggests that most do have the view of "ACL have questions to answer but Sisu are ultimately responsible" or whatever it was exactly. So I'm not sure that's as controversial a position as some on here are claiming. Certainly if you were to take a position that the likes of Nick and Limoncello think is accurate you would end up alienating a large portion of the fanbase. That's not a statement on who is right or wrong, just the current state of feeling.

Grendel has a great point about Sisu being Kingmaker, but I'm not sure what good it is. "Engaging" Sisu seems to do nothing but play into their hands. It gives them power to remove that "engagement" if they don't like what you are saying (a power they have exercised frequently) and it risks not doing the primary purpose of any fans groups: representing the views of the fans.

In any normal circumstances I'd agree with Grendel and 12-18 months ago I would've here, but Sisu have consistently shown they are not interested so why bother?

MichaelCCFC · Jun 3, 2014

Grendel said:
What you seem to ignore, which is very frustrating, is they are the Kingmaker. They are the only party who has any influence on the clubs destiny. Therefore, you have to engage them. Failure to engage them means that you risk losing the club from Coventry for sometime. If they attained the Ricoh "on the cheap" or "got their grubby mits on the Ricoh" or whatever the in vogue saying is this week why does this matter if the club is back in Coventry?

If sisu managed to achieve this and own the stadium what's actually going to happen?

One thing that will not happen is another game at Sixfields.

Engagement is a key point. The Trust have been Herculean in their efforts to engage with sisu and back when the Trust was relaunched a small amount of effort by sisu could have got people on board very easily. But sisu didn't want to engage, they just wanted people to agree with them. The Trust declined to help sisu with wanting to relocate away from the ricoh and the rest is history. If our owner was a normal, reasonable business then you'd be dead right about engagement - but that isn't the reality here. sisu give access to people they see as sympathetic but one of the most notable things about how they operate is that they don't engage. 'Battering people in court' is far more their style. and that is very frustrating indeed!

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Engagement is a key point. The Trust have been Herculean in their efforts to engage with sisu and back when the Trust was relaunched a small amount of effort by sisu could have got people on board very easily. But sisu didn't want to engage, they just wanted people to agree with them. The Trust declined to help sisu with wanting to relocate away from the ricoh and the rest is history. If our owner was a normal, reasonable business then you'd be dead right about engagement - but that isn't the reality here. sisu give access to people they see as sympathetic but one of the most notable things about how they operate is that they don't engage. 'Battering people in court' is far more their style. and that is very frustrating indeed!

There were also a number of shouty and illiterate 'press releases' from the Trust around then which were nothing to do with helping or otherwise in a move to Northampton, but certainly weren't helpful.

Thankfully now it's less shouty, they're going for show rather than tell and that works a lot better. Whether SISU have been as quick to forgive and forget as they maybe should is indeed a fair point to raise; whether the collateral damage of blaming all Trust board members for that is fair is indeed a reasonable point to make but...

There are some that it'shardly surprising that the club disengages from and sets in opposition to. You're certainly one, as the message veers incomprehensably not just from week to week, but from the start, middle and end of one mail.

And then the repeated pronouncements of the same statements over and over again don't really engage either. Your mails often read to me that you're doing exactly what you criticise SISU for doing, trying to push for a position of either with you or against you.

Now... I'm sure in reality that's not what you intend, but that's how I read them.

shmmeee · Jun 3, 2014

I don't think being shouty when someone is taking your club away is a bad thing TBH. The fans were indeed shouty. The club needed to know how shouty the fans were, especially as at the time they were still predicting 70% of us would follow the team (we did "do well" at first).

Answer the main point: What possible good has come or can come from appeasement (sorry engagement)? Sisu have shown consistently that they like to manage very closely the fans that they will listen to. How should the majority who are upset get their views heard if you're not allowed to express dissatisfaction with the current direction of the club?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

shmmeee said:
I don't think being shouty when someone is taking your club away is a bad thing TBH. The fans were indeed shouty. The club needed to know how shouty the fans were, especially as at the time they were still predicting 70% of us would follow the team (we did "do well" at first).

Answer the main point: What possible good has come or can come from appeasement (sorry engagement)? Sisu have shown consistently that they like to manage very closely the fans that they will listen to. How should the majority who are upset get their views heard if you're not allowed to express dissatisfaction with the current direction of the club?

There was too much aligning with Haskell, too many utterly, utterly incomprehensible mails, spattered by the occasional bit of coherence that attempted to show rather than tell (the q&a, a few finance questions - still unanswered etc.) that then the good work was ruined by a random RAWRRRR that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'll tell you what engagement serves, understanding. It also allows for information, and allow a broad church of fans to make their own mind up about who is to 'blame' without being forced along one path or another, without unpleasant divisive splits which encourage the likes of SPionkop to act like an utter cock.

Appeasement is a crass, ridiculous term to use, because talking to people doesn't have to mean you agree with them, you can't say you disagree with them, and you can't refuse to endorse a move to Northampton.

There is nothing wrong in saying you're not happy, but there are ways and means. There is nothing wrong now, in fact, for the Trust being prepared to demonstrate and show fans are not happy. That doesn't preclude engagement, and the binary of shout and RAWR v 'appeasement' is an unecessary sledgehammer to polarise two positions that can co-exist.

I would say the shouty approach did catastrophic harm in those early days when the moment was there for a big, proactive voice. The shouty approach destroyed any positive beginnings from a march and ensured 3 men and a dog turned up to subsequent protests.

But what's done is done. Maybe the Trust have veered too much to a position of silence, maybe they need a voice again, but I'd far rather this as of the show rather than tell approach, a rallying of a body of fans... rather than a forcing people to take sides, set fan against fan in a destructive unhelpful manner.

limoncello · Jun 3, 2014

The Gentleman said:
As said by the man who brings absolutely fuck all to this forum.

How can you name yourself 'The Gentleman' and yet be so coarse and vulgar? Really no need tbh.

MichaelCCFC · Jun 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
There was too much aligning with Haskell, too many utterly, utterly incomprehensible mails, spattered by the occasional bit of coherence that attempted to show rather than tell (the q&a, a few finance questions - still unanswered etc.) that then the good work was ruined by a random RAWRRRR that made absilutely no sense whatsoever.

I'll tell you what engagement serves, understanding. It also allows for information, and allow a broad church of fans to make their own mind up about who is to 'blame' without being forced along one path or another, without unpleasant divisive splits which encourage the likes of SPionkop to act like an utter cock.

Appeasement is a crass, ridiculous term to use, because talking to people doesn't have to mean you agree with them, you can't say you disagree with them, and you can't refuse to endorse a move to Northampton.

There is nothing wrong in saying you're not happy, but there are ways and means. There is nothing wrong now, in fact, for the Trust being prepared to demonstrate and show fans are not happy. That doesn't preclude engagement, and the binary of shout and RAWR v 'appeasement' is an unessecary sledgehammer to polarise two positions that can co-exist.

I would say the shouty approach did catastrophic harm in those early days when the moment was there for a big, proactive voice. The shouty approach destroyed any positive beginnings from a march and ensured 3 men and a dog turned up to subsequent protests.

But what's done is done. Maybe the Trust have veered too much to a position of silence, maybe they need a voice again, but I'd far rather this as of the show rather than tell approach, a rallying of a body of fans... rather than a forcing people to take sides, set fan against fan in a destructive unhelpful manner.

Afraid you're reinventing history. The Trust in its early relaunch days worked really hard to try to get sisu to engage and sisu just wouldn't. And are you really justifying the legal threat made to the Trust not for anything it said but posting a link to a national newspaper article? The way Steve Brown in particular has been treated at scg meetings has been disgraceful - but sounds like you think he deserves it. ML leaking comments made by Jan - again, you're happy with that then?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Afraid you're reinventing history. The Trust in its early relaunch days worked really hard to try to get sisu to engage and sisu just wouldn't. And are you really justifying the legal threat made to the Trust not for anything it said but posting a link to a national newspaper article? The way Steve Brown in particular has been treated at scg meetings has been disgraceful - but sounds like you think he deserves it. ML leaking comments made by Jan - again, you're happy with that then?

Reinventing history?

You're denying that there were some utterly, utterly baffling 'press releases' put up on the web site?

If so, then it's not me reinventing history my friend...

Also utterly ridiculous to say I think Steve Brown deserves it. In fact, "whether the collateral damage of blaming all Trust board members for that is fair is indeed a reasonable point to make." Given I've spent a fair amount of time praising Steve's approach and his refusal to get riled in the face of provocation (and how, incidentally, that helps immensely in drawing attention to anything unreasonable than the repetition of a few stock phrases) then it's even more stupid. Given he, since becoming Chairman, has refused to criticise those with a different view to his, it'd be a bit stupid to criticise him in return, wouldn't it... Perhaps, in fact, we could all learn a bit from that on this board instead of trying to compartmentalise people.

But see, someone dares to criticise you, even in the most moderate terms (unless you wrote the shouty press releases?) and you revert to an unhelpful position of deciding I'm against you.

Just like SISU.

Grendel · Jun 3, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Afraid you're reinventing history. The Trust in its early relaunch days worked really hard to try to get sisu to engage and sisu just wouldn't. And are you really justifying the legal threat made to the Trust not for anything it said but posting a link to a national newspaper article? The way Steve Brown in particular has been treated at scg meetings has been disgraceful - but sounds like you think he deserves it. ML leaking comments made by Jan - again, you're happy with that then?

Games are played both sides. PWKH and his snide remarks that Rob S sat with Les Reid was a prime example.

Frankly if people are happy or not again matters not. It is irrelevant. I've negotiated deals with people I do not like. Sorry that's the real world. You smile, you offer platitudes and you treat them with respect if you feel it will achieve something.

Without the support if sisu you get nowhere absolutely nowhere.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

Grendel said:
Games are played both sides. PWKH and his snide remarks that Rob S sat with Les Reid was a prime example.

Frankly if people are happy or not again matters not. It is irrelevant. I've negotiated deals with people I do not like. Sorry that's the real world. You smile, you offer platitudes and you treat them with respect if you feel it will achieve something.

Without the support if sisu you get nowhere absolutely nowhere.

Perhaps, in fact,an approach of trying to talk and being rebuffed shows more about SISU's actions than any amount of shouting can do... it's a no-lose approach to take.

Either it draws attention to the fact that SISU are unmanageable, stops them getting popular support for unhelpful actions...

Or one day they decide to talk, open up channels of communication, and engagement happens.

One thing's for sure, engagement never happens, fans are never listened to, if nobody even tries to talk.If they try and are rebuffed, they're no worse off then if they never try at all.

In fact... they might just be in a better position, and the germ for action is sown a lot more effectively than the broken record.

MichaelCCFC · Jun 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Reinventing history?

You're denying that there were some utterly, utterly baffling 'press releases' put up on the web site?

If so, then it's not me reinventing history my friend...

Also utterly ridiculous to say I think Steve Brown deserves it. In fact, "whether the collateral damage of blaming all Trust board members for that is fair is indeed a reasonable point to make." Given I've spent a fair amount of time praising Steve's approach and his refusal to get riled in the face of provocation (and how, incidentally, that helps immensely in drawing attention to anything unreasonable than the repetition of a few stock phrases) then it's even more stupid.

But see, someone dares to criticise you, even in the most moderate terms (unless you wrote the shouty press releases?) and you revert to an unhelpful position of deciding I'm against you.

Just like SISU.

I find arguing things out on here really helpful because I like to see what posters with different views pick up on and having views challenged makes you think them through more, but tbh not sure how we've got onto arguing about us both respecting Steve! To try to return to the op, it's an attempt to set out the kcic position - it's there to be clear not to get 110% agreement - but suggestions for specific improvements v welcome

(with the Trust, there were of course mistakes like the infamous LKO 'we'd welcome admin' episode but to try to say the Trust is somehow to blame for sisu not engaging just ain't right)

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
I find arguing things out on here really helpful because I like to see what posters with different views pick up on and having views challenged makes you think them through more, but tbh not sure how we've got onto arguing about us both respecting Steve! To try to return to the op, it's an attempt to set out the kcic position - it's there to be clear not to get 110% agreement - but suggestions for specific improvements v welcome

(with the Trust, there were of course mistakes like the infamous LKO 'we'd welcome admin' episode but to try to say the Trust is somehow to blame for sisu not engaging just ain't right)

It got onto that because you chose to draw a view out that was the polar opposite to what I'd written but a couple of paragraphs further on!

Again, you skew into an absolute, a black and white.

SISU have always had issues talking to people, nobody denies that. At the same time, in their own way(!) they are trying now to engage - doesn't mean that people have to believe what's spoken, doesn't mean that you have to agree with what's spoken, but slowly and surely channels are being opened up. Those channels even allow the opportunity for people to re-iterate that they really should be engaging with the Trust in return, in fact!

But as channels open, even if you want a SISUless fan-owned club, you at least increase your chances of understanding what it would take to get that if you engage. SISU Out! may mean working with SISU to that aim...

As for the OP - it's been said here and on other threads but...

Either just leave in the bit about "sisu are not good for CCFC and cannot be trusted; for a successful and sustainable future we need a new fan led ownership model, working alongside co-investors" or the "kcic is pro team and pro fan and has never bought into being pro/anti acl/sisu". Both in there in the same mailing just add weight to the doubt about what you are about! The two can apply, but the way they're put together in that mailing leads to a scratching of heads and sums up KCiC's biggest problem for me, I never know if they're on the radical fringes, trying to embrace the mainstream, or trying to co-opt the mainstream to the radical!

You can believe SISU are not good for CCFC (many do, after all!), but you're either:

Adding confusion with the second statement and muddying the waters (leave it as just pro-team and pro-fan) or;

Splitting into for or against with the first, and suggesting the *only* way to be pro-team is to accept the first statement as absolute - thus contributing (I'll accept accidentally) to the likes of Spionkop coming on here like a poor imitation of Father Jack. I'd stop the campaigning for a particular ownership model, focus on the CCFC belong in Coventry (not sure you have to make it specific to the Ricoh - every man, boy and child knows there's not exactly an alternative(!) ) and focus on the CCFC should be run as a club for the fans' interests - that applies whether we're owned by a new fan led ownership model, working alongside co-investors, Putin, SISU, or Joy Seppala's cat.

Ian1779 · Jun 3, 2014

When Haskell first came along the Trust couldn't wait to be all over him like a rash. The promise of having this fans stake in the club firmly entrenched the trust and KCIC in the 'anyone but SISU' camp. No thought about how a new owner would take things forward... Just interested in having that little bit of power. That's probably why they won't engage now.

So has the position changed? Possibly a bit, but perhaps if the KCIC campaign was actually clear and not contradictory then engagement may begin again.The fact is until they go, the Trust, KCIC, GCBTR and everyone else will have to engage with SISU if we are going to move on. No one has to like each other. Perhaps if you all became a single voice with a simple message 'back to Coventry' - no caveats about who's been good/bad, boycotting a new stadium etc then why wouldn't everyone get behind it.

All I want is CCFC back in Coventry, preferably at the Ricoh. I don't really care who owns them right now... That battle can be taken up in the future if necessary.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jun 3, 2014

Ian1779 said:
When Haskell first came along the Trust couldn't wait to be all over him like a rash. The promise of having this fans stake in the club firmly entrenched the trust and KCIC in the 'anyone but SISU' camp. No thought about how a new owner would take things forward... Just interested in having that little bit of power. That's probably why they won't engage now.

So has the position changed? Possibly a bit, but perhaps if the KCIC campaign was actually clear and not contradictory then engagement may begin again.The fact is until they go, the Trust, KCIC, GCBTR and everyone else will have to engage with SISU if we are going to move on. No one has to like each other. Perhaps if you all became a single voice with a simple message 'back to Coventry' - no caveats about who's been good/bad, boycotting a new stadium etc then why wouldn't everyone get behind it.

All I want is CCFC back in Coventry, preferably at the Ricoh. I don't really care who owns them right now... That battle can be taken up in the future if necessary.

Why who wont engage?

Steve.B50 · Jun 3, 2014

Ian1779 said:
When Haskell first came along the Trust couldn't wait to be all over him like a rash. The promise of having this fans stake in the club firmly entrenched the trust and KCIC in the 'anyone but SISU' camp. No thought about how a new owner would take things .

All I want is CCFC back in Coventry, preferably at the Ricoh. I don't really care who owns them right now... That battle can be taken up in the future if necessary.

I think you will find that Preston Haskell approached the Trust and it was he and his team who wanted to involve the supporters, via the Trust.

Ian1779 · Jun 3, 2014

Steve.B50 said:
I think you will find that Preston Haskell approached the Trust and it was he and his team who wanted to involve the supporters, via the Trust.

Yes and...? Haskell obviously raised the idea and they all dived in on it.

Personally, don't ever think fan ownership will ever work - at any club. Fans can't agree on the most trivial of things.. how could we collectively help run a football club.

skybluetony176 · Jun 3, 2014

Steve.B50 said:
I think you will find that Preston Haskell approached the Trust and it was he and his team who wanted to involve the supporters, via the Trust.

involve the fans, what a novel idea. it sounds better than "you can trust us with your shares"

Ian1779 said:
Yes and...? Haskell obviously raised the idea and they all dived in on it.

Personally, don't ever think fan ownership will ever work - at any club. Fans can't agree on the most trivial of things.. how could we collectively help run a football club.

it works in Germany. How are Swansea doing by the way? They're probably praying for a sisu like outfit to come and end their nightmare

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jun 3, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Yes and...? Haskell obviously raised the idea and they all dived in on it.

Personally, don't ever think fan ownership will ever work - at any club. Fans can't agree on the most trivial of things.. how could we collectively help run a football club.

Tell you one thing,they wouldn't have thought of the brilliant business plan of moving the club 35 miles away though would they?

Ian1779 · Jun 3, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
involve the fans, what a novel idea. it sounds better than "you can trust us with your shares"

it works in Germany. How are Swansea doing by the way? They're probably praying for a sisu like outfit to come and end their nightmare

Ask how it worked out for Rushden and Diamonds? Or maybe how Ebbsfleet had to be re-bought by someone to save it from it's failed fan ownership scheme?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
it works in Germany. How are Swansea doing by the way? They're probably playing for a sisu like outfit to come and end their nightmare

It works in Germany as much because the system's set up for it. It certainly didn't work for Lincoln, Mansfield, Notts County, Wycombe etc. Even Exeter have fans demanding they make a push and break their pay structure recently. Swansea is more akin to, say, Crystal Palace or other clubs with wealthy fan-benefactors... which I'm sure we'd all take like a shot! Somewhat different to a fan-ownership model though.

And thus, it goes back to the point hinted at elsewhere that we're stronger together. Football works on rivalries, oppositions, tribe v tribe...but when it comes to a fans' voice we maybe need to put that aside, work together to remind the governing bodies it should be about the clubs, the spirit, the competitions rather than the cash.

Until the system changes, fan ownership is a dead duck in my view - has merit for firefighting and keeping a club going as last resort, doesn't long term.

Frisky blue · Jun 3, 2014

AndreasB said:
And that load of bollocks is the sum total of your considered opinion on the matter is it?

That's rich, from a total tool like you. I want a team we can be proud of, the likes of losers like you are happy to accept the crap sisu are dealing us are you?

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jun 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
It works in Germany as much because the system's set up for it. It certainly didn't work for Lincoln, Mansfield, Notts County, Wycombe etc. Even Exeter have fans demanding they make a push and break their pay structure recently. Swansea is more akin to, say, Crystal Palace or other clubs with wealthy fan-benefactors... which I'm sure we'd all take like a shot! Somewhat different to a fan-ownership model though.

And thus, it goes back to the point hinted at elsewhere that we're stronger together. Football works on rivalries, oppositions, tribe v tribe...but when it comes to a fans' voice we maybe need to put that aside, work together to remind the governing bodies it should be about the clubs, the spirit, the competitions rather than the cash.

Until the system changes, fan ownership is a dead duck in my view - has merit for firefighting and keeping a club going as last resort, doesn't long term.

Northern it was never about fan ownership,but was all about fan representation. Just like at the moment its about fan engagement,answer me this Northern if you were Tim or Joy who would you rather meet moderate Steve Brown or looney tune me?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Northern it was never about fan ownership,but was all about fan representation. Just like at the moment its about fan engagement,answer me this Northern if you were Tim or Joy who would you rather meet moderate Steve Brown or looney tune me?

Yup, and I haven't ever said fans shouldn't be represented, but the campaigning in KCiC's mail sits uneasily with me, because it is setting out one position, and one position only.

Let's face it, it's unlikely SISU suddenly change their spots, appoint Steve, me and you (what a dream team that'd be eh!) to the board, and everything works out nice again. Ultimately I don't care if there's a token fan on the board or not; we've seen with the paranoia here that if the club was going badly, said fan would be in league with the owners really, colluding against the true fans... even though it'd be token lip service there anyway.

I do care about the club acting likea club, and that it certainly ain't, and hasn't since, well.... tbh as long as I've supported them really! (Poynton era was OK I suppose, but masked by a cup win and a manager with charisma, rather than a club ethos that loved the fans - ironically Richardson's early time before Robinson started spunking away, the closest we've got!) and yes, I have voiced to the nice Mr. Labovitch that I find it baffling he holds the entire trust responsible, and baffling he and others won't engage the Trust as Trust given that, agree with individuals or not, in not doing so he alienates the largest fan body and, ultimately, alienates me as a member of said Trust (even if I don't agree with all they do) as much as anybody!

That, however, isn't the same as rejecting anything SISU do in the future because they're SISU. If they have a Road to Damascus moment, then as owners, treating them in the here and now, it would be helpful to us all to let byegones be byegones.

So... I'd be campaigning on the generals rather than the specifcs in that instance, a change in the behaviour of the club, no matter who the owner is - rather than nailing my mast (mixed metaphors abound tonight!) to one model.

Steve.B50 · Jun 3, 2014

Ian1779 said:
Yes and...? Haskell obviously raised the idea and they all dived in on it.

Personally, don't ever think fan ownership will ever work - at any club. Fans can't agree on the most trivial of things.. how could we collectively help run a football club.

It was not about fan ownership, it was all about the supporters being represented at the highest level. At Swansea the supporters own 20%, enough to have a say but not to make a decision.

Covstu · Jun 3, 2014

Agree, Portsmouth took it the other way and time will tell if that was the correct decision. I would question who would be an appropriate representation of the fans as clearly we are a very split bunch!!

Ian1779 · Jun 3, 2014

Steve.B50 said:
It was not about fan ownership, it was all about the supporters being represented at the highest level. At Swansea the supporters own 20%, enough to have a say but not to make a decision.

First part of the KCIC statement in the OP:

MichaelCCFC said:
· The kcic view is: the interests of the team and fans should come before politics and profits; acl and Coventry City Council have questions to answer but sisu are primarily responsible for the move to NTFC; we would be better off owning the Ricoh but sisu are not good for CCFC and cannot be trusted; for a successful and sustainable future we need a new fan led ownership model, working alongside co-investors

which was exactly what Haskell suggested.

I don't like the idea of fan ownership, because all it does it create a new hierarchy system within the supporters. And who goes to the top...either those with the most money, or biggest mouth. Not those with the best ideas. Few making decisions for the masses. And given the money that may be involved, it won't involve any kind of democratic selection.

Kingokings204 · Jun 3, 2014

A bunch of split fans or sisu?

Tough one isn't it

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Jun 3, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yup, and I haven't ever said fans shouldn't be represented, but the campaigning in KCiC's mail sits uneasily with me, because it is setting out one position, and one position only.

Let's face it, it's unlikely SISU suddenly change their spots, appoint Steve, me and you (what a dream team that'd be eh!) to the board, and everything works out nice again. Ultimately I don't care if there's a token fan on the board or not; we've seen with the paranoia here that if the club was going badly, said fan would be in league with the owners really, colluding against the true fans... even though it'd be token lip service there anyway.

I do care about the club acting likea club, and that it certainly ain't, and hasn't since, well.... tbh as long as I've supported them really! (Poynton era was OK I suppose, but masked by a cup win and a manager with charisma, rather than a club ethos that loved the fans - ironically Richardson's early time before Robinson started spunking away, the closest we've got!) and yes, I have voiced to the nice Mr. Labovitch that I find it baffling he holds the entire trust responsible, and baffling he and others won't engage the Trust as Trust given that, agree with individuals or not, in not doing so he alienates the largest fan body and, ultimately, alienates me as a member of said Trust (even if I don't agree with all they do) as much as anybody!

That, however, isn't the same as rejecting anything SISU do in the future because they're SISU. If they have a Road to Damascus moment, then as owners, treating them in the here and now, it would be helpful to us all to let byegones be byegones.

So... I'd be campaigning on the generals rather than the specifcs in that instance, a change in the behaviour of the club, no matter who the owner is - rather than nailing my mast (mixed metaphors abound tonight!) to one model.

My point is that the representation thing was Haskells idea there is no chance of that with Sisu,that to me is irrelevant. I have also said to both TF and JS that they should engage with the Trust,the Trust could help in this situation. Here's tte rub if I can talk to Sisu(me:facepalm then why cant they talk to the Trust?

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

Broken Hearted Sky Blue said:
Here's tte rub if I can talk to Sisu(me:facepalm then why cant they talk to the Trust?

Well it's a question I didn't get a satisfactory answer to (or one that satisfied me anyway - of course me not reporting back a no answer got aload of shit ).

That doesn't devalue an attempt to open lines of dialogue though. In fact, the more reasonable the Trust appears, the more unreasonable SISU appear in return.

If you were leading a campaign for hearts and minds, the reasonable approach that's rebuffed would probably swing more against SISU than any confrontation.

As for representation being Haskell's idea, to be honest I've seen nothing to suggest it was anything but a cynical ploy to get people onside by paying lip service. Wasn't there an occasion where Hoffman was all for dialogue with fans' groups... but was going to cut any off who talked to SISU? (I had a quick glance for the thread as proof but I can't be bothered looking harder, might later if I can be arsed ) I don't like cheap words, and Haskell's whole period smacked as an atempt to maneuvre himself into a position of only bidder, in order to pick up a property development opportunity on the cheap (actually kind of annoyed SISU are peddling this line now, as it devalues me saying it, when I said it before them ffs!). Maybe I'm overly cynical but...

Haskell is in fact a fine example how just because fan representation is offered, doesn't automatically make them an ideal owner.

Now... unlikely we'd get the ideal owner (a group of rich fan-benefactors) but the near-ideal owner may offer fan engagement in a whole other way, that's equally appropriate.

Covstu · Jun 4, 2014

Kingokings204 said:
A bunch of split fans or sisu?

Tough one isn't it

which one is more realistic?

Tough one isn't it

Kingokings204 · Jun 4, 2014

Covstu said:
which one is more realistic?

Tough one isn't it

That's doesn't really make much sense.

blueflint · Jun 4, 2014

SkyblueBazza said:
Sorry to have to say this but this appears to me to be a very split nutshell!
1st paragraph puts it simply & would get an awful lot more people on board in itself. You go on to confuse it with ulterior motives in the next paragraph saying "SISU are not good for CCFC..." & talk of new fan-led ownership. That'll lose or at least worry a few!
Then it's a contradiction in the "Where does KCIC stand on the ACL-SISU dispute?" You suggest KCIC has never bought into being pro or anti ACL/SISU having already implied KCIC is anti-SISU
That confusion & contradictions are going to be a source of debate & concern for a lot of people. Playing in Coventry is not the stated aim/focus it appears...playing at the Ricoh under new fan-led ownership IS if I'm reading it right. If SISU bought a site in the City centre & bought the club home - would that not be enough? Maybe a rethink on the acronym is needed - KCATRUFLO (Keep Coventry at the Ricoh under fan led ownership)
Tbh those are the things that glared at me...the rest is simply emotive stuff by the look.

PUSB

since when have sisu been good for us

MichaelCCFC · Jun 4, 2014

Nick said:
Michael, maybe it is because nobody is disagreeing that SISU aren't good for CCFC which is why you keep going on and on about that one point like a broken record whenever anybody disagrees with anything you say because if anything is questioned you use that as some sort of shit comeback / reply.

'Broken record' is a pretty good description of this forum - lol! The kcic mailout is once a week and is averaging 1500 opens plus the thread on the latest one on here has had over 8k views so must be helping your advertising revenue at least a little bit!

One for Rob S and the Trust? (3 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

limoncello

Guest

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency