Open Letter to Supporters (1 Viewer)

skybluestevie · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
How are people going to games lining their pockets exactly?

This is an example, nw and Otis is why things go on. People who popup just to push this shite, 50 quid says they won't be able to back any of it up.

I will try to explain this as simply as I can so that yourself and Grendel understand...

The club were made to be debt free as a result of restructuring by the FA. Since then, SISU have fiddled the figures and laden the club with self inflicted debt again, lending itself money and charging high administration fees and interest charges. They then deduct vast sums from club funds, provided from several sources including your good selves, before giving the manager a budget to work with...

oldskyblue58 · Dec 7, 2018

Eastwood is quoted as saying that CCFC doesnt add much to the Wasps finances. Now if that is not the case then this is the opportunity for the Club (those at Otium) to challenge that. It should carry more weight than relying on old quotes from a politician.

Talk up the worth to Wasps but also talk up the financial worth to Coventry

Then get on to the worth to the community in things like SBITC, JSB's etc. That doesnt have to be focused on money though

Cold facts, that lead on to emotional/ cultural involvement

usskyblue · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
The trust isn’t above criticism but when the criticism is that they haven’t done something that they have then the criticism isn’t warranted. When the criticism is that they’ve ticked a box and will now move on when in fact they’ve been ticking that box repeatedly since the start of the season and continue to tick that box with no sign of moving on then that criticism isn’t warranted. When the criticism is that that they’ve supported a statement from another supporters group when actually if you read the original statement in full all it really does (aside from lump TF in with SISU) is support the stance of the open letter issued by CCFC itself in that CCFC isn’t SISU then the criticism isn’t warranted. It’s almost like those doing the criticising are not actually aware of what the trust has been doing all season, not read the Jimmy Hill Way statement and presumably not read the open letter issued by the club either. Yes at least the trust are doing something, whereas those doing the criticising clearly can’t be arsed to do the due diligence to see if there’s anything to criticise. It’s a case of the trust has said something so there’s an assumption that there’s something to criticise.

The Trust came across as a group of individuals that pushed their own agenda without canvassing their members. Their actions alienated me, and a fair few other people that joined in good faith. Criticism you may think fair or unfair, that’s a matter of personal opinion.

I don’t know if things have changed and I’m not aware of what the Trust is ‘doing’ now because (I for one) don’t hear or see anything much anymore. Communication is key if they want to regain the members that walked away. Although you have to understand that some people are ‘one and done’ with the Trust and just see what they’re doing as ‘noise’.

From everything I’ve seen and heard; singular blame laying is wrong and pushing that line of thinking only further divides the fan base. As does accusing people who don’t solely blame SISU (although they’re clearly a culpable party) as being ‘SISU lovers’. Just as SISU, Wasps and the Council are up there being judged, so are the Trust...because as much good as they profess they are doing, it could equally be seen as being damaging. Any Trust should find ways to be open to people with differing opinions and try to accommodate everyone... with the understanding that some people will never agree or conform.

The only thing we ALL (as fans) have in common is a love for the club. How best to ‘save’ it will always be a matter of opinion.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluestevie said:
I will try to explain this as simply as I can so that yourself and Grendel understand...

The club were made to be debt free as a result of restructuring by the FA. Since then, SISU have fiddled the figures and laden the club with self inflicted debt again, lending itself money and charging high administration fees and interest charges. They then deduct vast sums from club funds, provided from several sources including your good selves, before giving the manager a budget to work with...

Really? Can you show your workings out? The vast amount of interest is accrued rather than paid isn't it?

Do you have some examples of the vast amounts they are taking every year?

Perfect example of somebody logging in to try and push a view, will go silent again until next time needed. Is there a bit of worry that city fans might get a bit of traction against other sides or something?

Adge · Dec 7, 2018

Grendel said:
Oh right so if they trebled your rent, refused to replace a boiler that did not work, did not mend a leaking roof as long as the Landlord was Mr Eastwood you would keep kissing his arse

I think I can see where you are coming from

Yeah that reminds me-the Ricoh roof is still leaking down into my seat-useless landlords-I’m off to the Supreme Court.....

oldskyblue58 · Dec 7, 2018

skybluestevie said:
I will try to explain this as simply as I can so that yourself and Grendel understand...

The club were made to be debt free as a result of restructuring by the FA. Since then, SISU have fiddled the figures and laden the club with self inflicted debt again, lending itself money and charging high administration fees and interest charges. They then deduct vast sums from club funds, provided from several sources including your good selves, before giving the manager a budget to work with...

OK as i do understand lets correct a few things. The Club has never been debt free. Yes SISU have used clever accounting to manufacture debt balances but some of the debt represents what people might call real debt. The FA did not restructure anything for the club. They might have approved the final administration but thats not them restructuring anything. There is no evidence in the accounts published of any administration costs paid to SISU. The loans that they created either by actual cash or accounting within the group remain outstanding. The interest has been accrued but has never been paid out (only a very small part). The club could not afford to pay the interest because it does not have the money in the bank. The only caveat to that is we do not know what has happened since 01/06/2017 it hasnt been published anywhere yet....... The budget that the whole club/company runs under is derived from the income CCFC/Otium gets from football activities, and the 2017 accounts show the football club ran at a loss before accounting for interest charges, the owners having to put money in to cover it (net around 400k)

I hate defending SISU in any sense, although i attempt to fair in my analysis and judgement, but i hate the facts being twisted and people being misled by anyone more. Happens far too often on this forum

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

oldskyblue58 said:
Eastwood is quoted as saying that CCFC doesnt add much to the Wasps finances. Now if that is not the case then this is the opportunity for the Club (those at Otium) to challenge that. It should carry more weight than relying on old quotes from a politician.

Talk up the worth to Wasps but also talk up the financial worth to Coventry

Then get on to the worth to the community in things like SBITC, JSB's etc. That doesnt have to be focused on money though

Cold facts, that lead on to emotional/ cultural involvement

Sort of the point I am making. People showing they love CCFC as much as possible, supporting the team, making the Ricoh Sky Blue would send a better example and also bring the fans more together. I can argue 24/7 with people like LAST (an example of somebody who never agrees with me on anything) but then you know on Saturday at 3PM you are all on the same side.

I don't agree about not questioning the council on what the things actually meant, if they were lying to councillors before a vote and bullshitting fans to soften the blow. It would be good to know if there is anything in there for potentially after SISU, will we just be at the mercy of Wasps for 240 odd years?

Would the club be able to release figures or would they be confidential? I guess if there was a "we are valuable", "your not valuable" then it would just go on. If somebody busted out a total spend / amount generated a season it might be confidential but it would settle it.

skybluestevie · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
Really? Can you show your workings out? The vast amount of interest is accrued rather than paid isn't it?

Do you have some examples of the vast amounts they are taking every year?

Coventry City owners Sisu wipe £61m of debt from club's accounts

CCFC profits up, losses down - but major investment needed
Accounts for Otium Entertainment, which is the football club business, show the Sky Blues managed to come out of the financial year ending in May 2017 with a gross profit of £4.62m - up £304,301 on 2016.

But staff costs of £4.172m and administrative costs of £1.564m turned that into an operating loss of £1.1m – down from £1.75m the year before.

The net capital debt owed to ARVO - a Cayman Island-based Sisu-related company used to invest in CCFC - sits at £14,283,853 including accrued interest.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluestevie said:
Coventry City owners Sisu wipe £61m of debt from club's accounts

CCFC profits up, losses down - but major investment needed
Accounts for Otium Entertainment, which is the football club business, show the Sky Blues managed to come out of the financial year ending in May 2017 with a gross profit of £4.62m - up £304,301 on 2016.

But staff costs of £4.172m and administrative costs of £1.564m turned that into an operating loss of £1.1m – down from £1.75m the year before.

The net capital debt owed to ARVO - a Cayman Island-based Sisu-related company used to invest in CCFC - sits at £14,283,853 including accrued interest.

So what are you proving? How much are they taking out every year?

You haven't based NOPM on having absolutely no idea have you? Oh dear, it would be a shame to have to go without watching your beloved team play by not having a clue. Then deciding one day you wanted to try and push that view to other city fans.

skybluestevie · Dec 7, 2018

oldskyblue58 said:
OK as i do understand lets correct a few things. The Club has never been debt free. Yes SISU have used clever accounting to manufacture debt balances but some of the debt represents what people might call real debt. The FA did not restructure anything for the club. They might have approved the final administration but thats not them restructuring anything. There is no evidence in the accounts published of any administration costs paid to SISU. The loans that they created either by actual cash or accounting within the group remain outstanding. The interest has been accrued but has never been paid out (only a very small part). The club could not afford to pay the interest because it does not have the money in the bank. The only caveat to that is we do not know what has happened since 01/06/2017 it hasnt been published anywhere yet....... The budget that the whole club/company runs under is derived from the income CCFC/Otium gets from football activities, and the 2017 accounts show the football club ran at a loss before accounting for interest charges, the owners having to put money in to cover it (net around 400k)

I hate defending SISU in any sense, but i hate the facts being twisted and people being misled by anyone more

I accept that I could have worded my post better. The restructuring was all done by SISU, but under orders from the FA.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluestevie said:
I accept that I could have worded my post better. The restructuring was all done by SISU, but under orders from the FA.

You could have tried wording it correctly or close to the mark. That would have been a start?

They then deduct vast sums from club funds, provided from several sources including your good selves, before giving the manager a budget to work with

Just worded wrong obviously. Tell that to the wrong (or correct for you) and you have misled people.

Sky Blue Pete · Dec 7, 2018

skybluestevie said:
So I am an imbecile...

Who is the bigger fool, the person who refuses to fund the parasite that is feeding of the club, or the person who continues to line their pockets in spite of all they have done to the detriment of the club?

Unfortunately, I am not in the financial position that I can throw money at a London Hedge Fund that I despise in the hope that they will suddenly decide they have taken enough money from me and it is time to find a different venture. I tend to believe that the reason they are still here is because they are still fleecing enough money from Super Supporters such as yourself to make it worth their while...

It’s going to run the club not the hedge fund

oldskyblue58 · Dec 7, 2018

skybluestevie said:
I accept that I could have worded my post better. The restructuring was all done by SISU, but under orders from the FA.

I doubt the FA would have chosen the structuring that was done. Just because Fisher said doesnt make it correct. The FA had no need to order the transfer of loans from CCFC H to otium, to load a new company with massive debt. SISU on the other hand did because it made Otium unsaleable after conversion in to shares, allowing the court cases and if they had won the appropriation of cash in large amounts to repay manufactured debt. In any case the administrator who is an officer of the court not the FA did the rejigging, the FA had no control of him. whether SISU had influence on him - well i have my own thoughts on that

Apologies if this all comes across as grouchy but it has been a long tough week and i need to go home!

skybluetony176 · Dec 7, 2018

usskyblue said:
The Trust came across as a group of individuals that pushed their own agenda without canvassing their members. Their actions alienated me, and a fair few other people that joined in good faith. Criticism you may think fair or unfair, that’s a matter of personal opinion.

I don’t know if things have changed and I’m not aware of what the Trust is ‘doing’ now because (I for one) don’t hear or see anything much anymore. Communication is key if they want to regain the members that walked away. Although you have to understand that some people are ‘one and done’ with the Trust and just see what they’re doing as ‘noise’.

From everything I’ve seen and heard; singular blame laying is wrong and pushing that line of thinking only further divides the fan base. As does accusing people who don’t solely blame SISU (although they’re clearly a culpable party) as being ‘SISU lovers’. Just as SISU, Wasps and the Council are up there being judged, so are the Trust...because as much good as they profess they are doing, it could equally be seen as being damaging. Any Trust should find ways to be open to people with differing opinions and try to accommodate everyone... with the understanding that some people will never agree or conform.

The only thing we ALL (as fans) have in common is a love for the club. How best to ‘save’ it will always be a matter of opinion.

The criticism that’s been levelled at the trust on this thread is criticism for the sake of criticism based on a whole fat lot of assumption.

My understanding of how the trust works and certainly my experience as a member is that although the board is individual the direction is a general consensus of members who are canvassed at meetings and email questionnaires. The general consensus might not tally with your train of thought but the alternative is that they go with a minority view rather than a majority view which would completely defeat the point of having a trust.

Not sure how you can accuse them of not being open. All meetings are minuted and published on their website, all questionnaire results are published on their website and all meetings are pretty much open and advertised as such except the odd occasion. The Mark Robbins one for example which for obvious reasons was ticketed.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

oldskyblue58 said:
I doubt the FA would have chosen the structuring that was done. Just because Fisher said doesnt make it correct. The FA had no need to order the transfer of loans from CCFC H to otium, to load a new company with massive debt. SISU on the other hand did because it made Otium unsaleable after conversion in to shares, allowing the court cases and if they had won the appropriation of cash in large amounts to repay manufactured debt. In any case the administrator who is an officer of the court not the FA did the rejigging, the FA had no control of him. whether SISU had influence on him - well i have my own thoughts on that

Apologies if this all comes across as grouchy but it has been a long tough week and i need to go home!

Would it be a good idea for the trust to publish something like this to clear up a few myths like that? Stuff like that could potentially put somebody going to watch their team play.

It's not defending sisu, it's more defending ccfc and maybe if fans aren't going because they think they are handing their money directly to sisu they may think again.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
The criticism that’s been levelled at the trust on this thread is criticism for the sake of criticism based on a whole fat lot of assumption.

My understanding of how the trust works and certainly my experience as a member is that although the board is individual the direction is a general consensus of members who are canvassed at meetings and email questionnaires. The general consensus might not tally with your train of thought but the alternative is that they go with a minority view rather than a majority view which would completely defeat the point of having a trust.

Not sure how you can accuse them of not being open. All meetings are minuted and published on their website, all questionnaire results are published on their website and all meetings are pretty much open.

What is based on assumption?

When was the last time you were asked your view on something via email? Not all meetings are minuted are they? Yes CJ has gone about streaming them and fair play to him as it means the audience can be bigger.

Yet there was a meeting he said about where everybody was slating wasps but can't find anything about it. Last has said that some of the views raised are discussed, was that minuted so people can see what happened to them? What happened in the meeting with wasps when they did a u turn against any action with them?

Edit: Just searched through emails, have a survey about fan ownership from Feb 2017? No real surveys to see what members general thoughts are.

skybluetony176 · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
What is based on assumption?

When was the last time you were asked your view on something via email? Not all meetings are minuted are they? Yes CJ has gone about streaming them and fair play to him as it means the audience can be bigger.

Yet there was a meeting he said about where everybody was slating wasps but can't find anything about it. Last has said that some of the views raised are discussed, was that minuted so people can see what happened to them? What happened in the meeting with wasps when they did a u turn against any action with them?

“They’ve ticked that box and will move on”

Adge · Dec 7, 2018

I am not a Trust member but they have released a statement separating the club from Sisu etc which some people seem to have a major issue with.
Isn’t that what people have spent the last week and 15 odd pages banging the “Sisu are not the club” drum?
Seems a bit double standards really?

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
“They’ve ticked that box and will move on”

I also said I'd be happy to be proven wrong didn't I? It's hardly based on nothing, it's based on pretty much every other time. "Yeah but we have called out xxx" which means a line within a massive rant about SISU, various un-needed digs (if they are trying to be professional anyway) and then the couple of the lines saying "We hope xxx can discuss this with the club".

It's like saying "SISU you are fucking twat bastard c**t arsehole bellend fanny flaps" (Dont think many would disagree) "oh and you you council, you plonkers. what are you like".

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

Adge said:
I am not a Trust member but they have released a statement separating the club from Sisu etc which some people seem to have a major issue with.
Isn’t that what people have spent the last week and 15 odd pages banging the “Sisu are not the club” drum?
Seems a bit double standards really?

They have said they will join with the sky blue community but not fisher or SISU. Isn't that completely obvious? Were the thousands at Wembley joining with SISU? It's common sense that people can support CCFC and not SISU. Why is it taking the Trust how many years to mention or realise this?

It's more the lack of anything in Wasps / Council direction again. Not saying abuse them or pitch invade Wasps games but it isn't really applying any sort of pressure their way is it?

If they really believe that, like I said. They would all be attending home games and getting behind CCFC as soon as they could. The fact that board members are boycotting sort of paints a picture. As soon as they put something out saying "everybody get down to the ricoh and support your team and show how much you care" then I will be fully behind that and agreeing.

By that bit I don't mean Moz by the way, no digs in his direction in the slightest as he's at pretty much every game I think. Fair play to him. He is one of them that I can relate more to.

skybluetony176 · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
I also said I'd be happy to be proven wrong didn't I? It's hardly based on nothing, it's based on pretty much every other time. "Yeah but we have called out xxx" which means a line within a massive rant about SISU, various un-needed digs (if they are trying to be professional anyway) and then the couple of the lines saying "We hope xxx can discuss this with the club".

It's like saying "SISU you are fucking twat bastard c**t arsehole bellend fanny flaps" (Dont think many would disagree) "oh and you you council, you plonkers. what are you like".

So you acknowledge that you’ve been proven wrong but deny that it was because you made an assumption. Do you not see the contradiction there? What was your now acknowledged incorrect statement based on if not an assumption?

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
So you acknowledge that you’ve been proven wrong but deny that it was because you made an assumption. Do you not see the contradiction there? What was your now acknowledged incorrect statement based on if not an assumption?

What have I been proven wrong about? I said let's see what else comes of it in terms of pressure on other sides (not a sentence in amongst the rest of the page) or a mail merge sent out. I am still waiting for CJ to find me examples of something negative said about wasps that he said happened. (Again, not abuse).

Where's my contradiction? If they come out going at wasps and the council then I'll be wrong, won't I? They can / should still go at sisu, obviously. Just to confirm.

usskyblue · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
So you acknowledge that you’ve been proven wrong but deny that it was because you made an assumption. Do you not see the contradiction there? What was your now acknowledged incorrect statement based on if not an assumption?

The constant one-upmanship bickering isn’t helping you, the Trust or the situation. It comes across like the Trust did...which was when, and why I left.

skybluetony176 · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
What have I been proven wrong about? I said let's see what else comes of it in terms of pressure on other sides (not a sentence in amongst the rest of the page) or a mail merge sent out. I am still waiting for CJ to find me examples of something negative said about wasps that he said happened. (Again, not abuse).

Where's my contradiction?

Do we really have to do this? You said that’s that boxed ticked now move on and I pointed out to you that they’ve been repeatedly ticking that box all season, continue to do so and stated right at the start that they wouldn’t stop until it’s sorted.

You’re now making another assumption to criticise the trust they’ve been writing to all sides from the start of the season.

Literally everything you’ve assumed that they haven’t done or won’t do they have done, are doing and are continuing to do.

Are any of your assumptions and they are assumptions based on anything factual at all or are you just criticising for the sake of criticising knowing that you have a captive audience willing to join in on face value of your assumptions? Do you realise how close you are to just telling barefaced lies? Is it a conscious decision or are you just wondering into it through shear ignorance?

skybluetony176 · Dec 7, 2018

usskyblue said:
The constant one-upmanship bickering isn’t helping you, the Trust or the situation. It comes across like the Trust did...which was when, and why I left.

Helping me? I’m not the one peddling lies while ignoring what has actually happened. Maybe your reply was meant for Nick. All I’ve done is correct Nick. It’s easily checked on the Trusts website if you don’t want to believe me. The trust can’t represent everyone 100% and never will. If that doesn’t suit you than you probably made the right decision in leaving. As is your choice.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Do we really have to do this? You said that’s that boxed ticked now move on and I pointed out to you that they’ve been repeatedly ticking that box all season, continue to do so and stated right at the start that they wouldn’t stop until it’s sorted.

You’re now making another assumption to criticise the trust they’ve been writing to all sides from the start of the season.

Literally everything you’ve assumed that they haven’t done or won’t do they have done, are doing and are continuing to do.

Are any of your assumptions and they are assumptions based on anything factual at all or are you just criticising for the sake of criticising knowing that you have a captive audience willing to join in on face value of your assumptions? Do you realise how close you are to just telling barefaced lies? Is it a conscious decision or are you just wondering into it through shear ignorance?

Ok so writing letters. That's your point? I said the box had been ticked about pressuring wasps, people had been calling to hear from them. They had so move on. Writing an open letter every few weeks to somebody isn't really pressuring anybody is it compared to other things that have been pushed?

What am I lying about exactly? I just had to tell last which people on the board were boycotting after he said none were. Who's lying? When was the last email asking for fans views? Are you lying?

Feel free to point out my lies and what is close to them, quotes will do.

usskyblue · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
Helping me? I’m not the one peddling lies while ignoring what has actually happened. Maybe your reply was meant for Nick. All I’ve done is correct Nick. It’s easily checked on the Trusts website if you don’t want to believe me. The trust can’t represent everyone 100% and never will. If that doesn’t suit you than you probably made the right decision in leaving. As is your choice.

Take a breath m8. Your argument with Nick is pure self indulgence on both of your parts.

You’re right. The Trust can’t represent everyone 100%...but an effort to engage the less (shall we say) hardcore SISU OUT mob might have been wise? I’m not suggesting the club wouldn’t be better off with different owners, but it seemed the the core of the Trust didn’t represent a large group of people that saw blame in multiple areas, not just one.

skybluetony176 · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
Ok so writing letters. That's your point? I said the box had been ticked about pressuring wasps, people had been calling to hear from them. They had so move on. Writing an open letter every few weeks to somebody isn't really pressuring anybody is it compared to other things that have been pushed?

What am I lying about exactly? I just had to tell last which people on the board were boycotting after he said none were. Who's lying? When was the last email asking for fans views? Are you lying?

Feel free to point out my lies and what is close to them, quotes will do.

What you actually said was “They have put a sentence in them saying "we hope wasps will do a deal". Like I said earlier, how much of that will be followed up going forward or is it just a box ticking exercise so they can say "we did call Wasps out".” So there’s lie No1.

Again and probably not for the last time because Nick is never wrong. “That sentence” has been repeated all season and to all parties. They’ve also publicly stated right at the start of their campaign that “that sentence” will continue to get asked of all parties until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.

They’ve done everything that you’ve said they haven’t, they’ve been doing that all season and will continue to do it until the end. So they haven’t just put a sentence in, they’ve been doing it all season. They’ve been following it up all season and have already pledged to follow it up for as long as it takes. What exactly is correct in your original post? Seems to me you got it completely wrong and don’t intend on admitting it regardless of how many times it’s pointed out to you.

ccfctommy · Dec 7, 2018

The trust could communicate a bit better. Their statement only appears on Cov Mad. No link to it on their Twitter page, no link to it on their Facebook page.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

usskyblue said:
Take a breath m8. Your argument with Nick is pure self indulgence on both of your parts.

You’re right. The Trust can’t represent everyone 100%...but an effort to engage the less (shall we say) hardcore SISU OUT mob might have been wise? I’m not suggesting the club wouldn’t be better off with different owners, but it seemed the the core of the Trust didn’t represent a large group of people that saw blame in multiple areas, not just one.

The thing is, I've been constructive. I've spent a fair bit of time sending ideas and thoughts. Steve on his fairness was always very engaging so I make a point of saying it wasn't him. Even though he didn't and doesn't agree with some things I said he would at least discuss them.

After he would put them forward it was radio silence, it was as pointless as suggesting sisu drop the legal stuff.

There are people who suggest things who are constructive (probably more than me nowadays) who don't just randomly rant at them who also just get ignored.

There's no willingness to listen or take on any feedback no matter how constructive it is. It usually just gets "what have you done","apply to be on the board" as a response every time.

As a member, who has been asked their views?

shmmeee · Dec 7, 2018

Deleted member 5849 said:
I agree. I'll call a moron a moron (some deserve it!) if they decide to go in full offensive guns blazing, but if they want to debate the issues, debate the issues.

Personally I find the constant banging of the 'SISU are not CCFC' drum tiresome. That's a literal statement that's still as much use to anybody as saying I am not a potato. Ultimately, the paymasters control what happens to Otium Entertainment Group, trading as Coventry City Football Club, so it's hardly surprising they're linked.

(And no, I don't think that legal action means a deal can't be made, I don't think that letting Wasps off is at all appropriate, but I do think the constant focus on that is actually really... pointless)

Quite.

This place will be a no nuance zone for a while though.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

skybluetony176 said:
What you actually said was “They have put a sentence in them saying "we hope wasps will do a deal". Like I said earlier, how much of that will be followed up going forward or is it just a box ticking exercise so they can say "we did call Wasps out".” So there’s lie No1.

Again and probably not for the last time because Nick is never wrong. “That sentence” has been repeated all season and to all parties. They’ve also publicly stated right at the start of their campaign that “that sentence” will continue to get asked of all parties until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.

They’ve done everything that you’ve said they haven’t, they’ve been doing that all season and will continue to do it until the end. So they haven’t just put a sentence in, they’ve been doing it all season. They’ve been following it up all season and have already pledged to follow it up for as long as it takes. What exactly is correct in your original post? Seems to me you got it completely wrong and don’t intend on admitting it regardless of how many times it’s pointed out to you.

I meant followed up as in more than a letter or the same thing. Will you hear the trust say a bad word against wasps or the council? I don't mean silly abuse, I mean actually calling them out on things.

By following up, I clearly didn't mean an open letter every couple of months along the same lines. Petrified to say anything slightly negative about anybody else.

Like I said, it clearly is just box ticking to say they have "put pressure on everybody". When they start actually calling others out then I'll be wrong.

They publicly endorsed wasps and called one of their games a great sporting occasion for Christ sake. I'm not saying call Eastwood names, at least mention the elephant in the room while they are at it. Why not mention the higgs situation with the academy?

Why not call out the council on the statements they made about the sale? Say that it isn't about benefiting sisu it's about keeping ccfc safe as promimised. Why would they let that slide after they have bullshitted it?

shmmeee · Dec 7, 2018

Nick said:
The thing is, I've been constructive. I've spent a fair bit of time sending ideas and thoughts. Steve on his fairness was always very engaging so I make a point of saying it wasn't him. Even though he didn't and doesn't agree with some things I said he would at least discuss them.

After he would put them forward it was radio silence, it was as pointless as suggesting sisu drop the legal stuff.

There are people who suggest things who are constructive (probably more than me nowadays) who don't just randomly rant at them who also just get ignored.

There's no willingness to listen or take on any feedback no matter how constructive it is. It usually just gets "what have you done","apply to be on the board" as a response every time.

As a member, who has been asked their views?

I think the point is Nick, it’s a thankless task. Hence the “well you do a better job” responses.

It’s a hostile environment with every man and his dog lining up to tell you you’re doing it wrong but when you ask for actual help it’s silent. Everyone’s got an opinion, they’re like arseholes. Problem is people want to whinge, not act. Me included BTW. I did nothing for the Trust while I was a member.

It probably swings too far but you can see where it starts.

Nick · Dec 7, 2018

shmmeee said:
Quite.

This place will be a no nuance zone for a while though.

Plenty of nonces

NortonSkyBlue · Dec 7, 2018

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result.
It's time for an alternative approach, it's time for the Coventry City family to unite and cease the incessant finger pointing and work on how we can stop this situation before it gets out of control.
if there is anybody out there willing to discuss alternative solutions then we should get the ball rolling and do so rather than throwing stones and trying to stand ground over something that is totally immaterial now.

Open Letter to Supporters (1 Viewer)

Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Administrator

Member

Administrator

Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency