rob9872
Well-Known Member
I hope not! If that is him then he doesn't represent me. They can keep my quid but I'd like to formally revoke my membership if he doesn't stand down.
I hope not! If that is him then he doesn't represent me. They can keep my quid but I'd like to formally revoke my membership if he doesn't stand down.Is this him? You see he looks a lot like the chap on your website
Rochdale grooming scandal report: Ex-council boss told to give back £76k golden handshake
You should re-introduce that idea as it’s a good one.
Yeah...Thing is CJ I know and understand why the Trust wants to put the boot into the owners and rightly so.
But this statement, for me, was purely about the various supporters groups putting out an appeal for all sides to find a solution in order to secure the future of CCFC.
I don't think it would have hurt them to put their name to it.
Yeah...
I don't doubt the commitment, never have. They have more commitment than me to turn up regularly and put their head above the parapit. There's also a few of them who definitely want to improve things and listen to members.
This seems to be another own goal not to put their name to this statement however. And there are a few of them over time. Just when you think they're rowing back, something happens that makes you wonder. This has become a shitstorm when it had no need to be.
That would be a horrible thought I wouldn't want to countenance.it's almost as if someone wanted to distract from City support showing a unified front.
That would be a horrible thought I wouldn't want to countenance.
But yeah... it's all straight out of the SISU book of misdirection and divide and rule... even if unwittingly!
Can you actually revoke your membership? They say they are the biggest group after taking a quid off people years ago but it would be good to know how many people are actually involved. The whole thing needs a complete rethink.I hope not! If that is him then he doesn't represent me. They can keep my quid but I'd like to formally revoke my membership if he doesn't stand down.
Well at the moment like most I'm a non-active couldn't care less member about a pointless group, but I certainly wouldn't want to be associated as a member of any group represented by a nonce sympathiser.Can you actually revoke your membership? They say they are the biggest group after taking a quid off people years ago but it would be good to know how many people are actually involved. The whole thing needs a complete rethink.
Yeah that's it, is it still going?
Well at the moment like most I'm a non-active couldn't care less member about a pointless group, but I certainly wouldn't want to be associated as a member of any group represented by a nonce sympathiser.
Pretty straightforward - I’m actually interested in the wider community view on this one
I guess we need to wait for the explanation from CJ. After all he has just stated open and transparent communication with its members is the way forward.
Pretty straightforward - I’m actually interested in the wider community view on this one
Don't come on here much anymore as not worth the hassle.
Just want to point out that I am not on the Trust Board, however I go to meetings when I can and fully support the Sky Blue Trust and what they stand for.
A greater point perhaps is that I'd wager a large proportion if not all of those who voted "no" (63 so far) are lapsed members who the trust say they represent and yet are so out of touch they represent none of our views.I'm shocked that there are 19 people who think they're doing well.
I do get the lifetime membership as a way to get people to join up, and also saving on admin chasing each year. Practically, it must mean they struggle for funds anyway?A greater point perhaps is that I'd wager a large proportion if not all of those who voted "no" (63 so far) are lapsed members who the trust say they represent and yet are so out of touch they represent none of our views.
I voted 'yes' but only because I don't think it is as black and white as Grendel says it is.I'm shocked that there are 19 people who think they're doing well.
I think the comment above yours puts it very well and shows they are not fit for purpose.I voted 'yes' but only because I don't think it is as black and white as Grendel says it is.
I could just have easily said no,
I most certainly don't think they are doing well. Not by a long chalk.
I think they have done some good stuff, but then have got a lot of stuff wrong too.
I can't just conclude they are not fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean I am happy with them.
This has been my issue for a while. Realistically, unless we move out the city which nobody wants, we have to play at the Ricoh so to resolve the current situation either Sepalla has to stop all legal action or Wasps have to agree to talks and a short term deal until it is all resolved.If no, then who do they target? What’s their plan?
This has been my issue for a while. Realistically, unless we move out the city which nobody wants, we have to play at the Ricoh so to resolve the current situation either Sepalla has to stop all legal action or Wasps have to agree to talks and a short term deal until it is all resolved.
Given that there has been years of protesting against the owners - before, during and after matches both home and away; disrupting matches; protests at SISU offices; matches and so on what does the trust think is likely to happen in the next 5 months to change things? I can't see that there is any plan of action let alone anything likely to work.
On the other side you have Wasps who have shown themselves to be very reactive to negative publicity. Yet the trust refuse to criticise them and continue to take shots at SISU. I don't see how their actions are in any way helping and now they are actively working against the club. The trust refusing to put their name to the statement that every other fans group signed up to gives Wasps an easy out. A unanimous front and the questions get a lot harder for Wasps.
This has been my issue for a while. Realistically, unless we move out the city which nobody wants, we have to play at the Ricoh so to resolve the current situation either Sepalla has to stop all legal action or Wasps have to agree to talks and a short term deal until it is all resolved.
Given that there has been years of protesting against the owners - before, during and after matches both home and away; disrupting matches; protests at SISU offices; matches and so on what does the trust think is likely to happen in the next 5 months to change things? I can't see that there is any plan of action let alone anything likely to work.
On the other side you have Wasps who have shown themselves to be very reactive to negative publicity. Yet the trust refuse to criticise them and continue to take shots at SISU. I don't see how their actions are in any way helping and now they are actively working against the club. The trust refusing to put their name to the statement that every other fans group signed up to gives Wasps an easy out. A unanimous front and the questions get a lot harder for Wasps.
I think the comment above yours puts it very well and shows they are not fit for purpose.
TBF the trust should put this to their members to get a true picture.A greater point perhaps is that I'd wager a large proportion if not all of those who voted "no" (63 so far) are lapsed members who the trust say they represent and yet are so out of touch they represent none of our views.
So people's issue is that they wouldn't back the club moving?TBF the trust should put this to their members to get a true picture.
I would have thought that 50% of those that voted on here are not even members.
For sure Grendel Torch etc are not members yet are the most anti trust on here.
Don't think they would back any trust that wouldn't back the Club if it left Coventry.
IMHO.
I myself am a lapsed member went to the quiz might and meet the players night's but can't be arsed anymore with the general meetings think most people have given up.
Saying that I think most will come back if we do end up in complete shit again, abait maybe too late by then.
Here we go again accusing people of making stuff up you really are a one liner when you don't have a reply.So people's issue is that they wouldn't back the club moving?
Ok then. It's probably one of the major issues that they seem to be on another planet with no interest in listening to fans.
Still, if all else fails just make things up. It's as if away from the few people at meetings you genuinely can't see why people might disagree.
It's OK though, they can just setup a few Twitter accounts and make loads of shit up.
Here we go again accusing people of making stuff up you really are a one liner when you don't have a reply.
BTW I said some have you a couple of names sure there are others funny how not many that went to sixfields are members.
Honestly had enough of your constant bullshit this site has gone to the dogs.
Happy Xmas to you all.
Why should I know the Secretary of the Trust have seen him there may have spoke to him but I don't know him personally met you but don't know you personally ether.I am saying people are making stuff up because they are, it's a fact. Why is it when I suggested to some on the board about particular accounts setup just to make things up to mislead city fans there was no appetite for saying anything about it? Maybe somebody could explain that one, I was quite specific about the ones I meant as well. I have posted links on here to the ones who are just making things up.
Point out exactly what I have said is bullshit? How do you know exactly who and who isn't a member?
The thing is, you keep firing things out and have absolutely no response because you don't know what you are talking about. It's alright saying "this site has gone to the dogs" because everytime you and your mates get proven to be talking nonsense you have nothing else to say.
You said I was making things up about some people on the Trust board boycotting as well, you were adamant they weren't. Who was right and who was making things up?
Either you really don't have a clue what you are on about or you are just blindly defending and being made to look a bit silly. Same as you don't know the secretary of the trust!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?