Yeah, is it their current stance or what their stance should be?
"To oppose the football club owners" is how I see the Trust at the moment (and long before too).
To be fair...I think we're all pretty much opposed to the football club owners. I think people will vote for that without really thinking of what it means.
In other words, I agree if that was their main stance...but so long as they opposed the other parties complicit in this mess as well. Sisu do deserve criticism going their way after the way they've run the club for 10 years. That doesn't mean that others should be ignored.
Tough one to answer G as I think at least two of the options above could rightfully be picked.
To be fair...I think we're all pretty much opposed to the football club owners. I think people will vote for that without really thinking of what it means.
In other words, I agree if that was their main stance...but so long as they opposed the other parties complicit in this mess as well. Sisu do deserve criticism going their way after the way they've run the club for 10 years. That doesn't mean that others should be ignored.
Tough one to answer G as I think at least two of the options above could rightfully be picked.
Other response is the best option. It's muddled, and unclear what it is and also what it should be.
TBf i think attitude towards Sisu is changing. I know mine has. I think they ran us awfully for a long time. I would say since relegation to league 2 however, there has been a clear change in direction. This of course could be linked to Dave Boddy. But speaking objectively over the last 2/3 years, they haven't got much wrong. I blame the current stadium issue solely on Wasps and the council, but of course the long term issue SISU is a huge factor.
I meant the best option for me. That's my opinion that they're muddled and unclear...If you are any brand you are always trying to comprehend what the perception of your values are against your MS and KPI's - so many companies try a snapshot opinion to look at the outcome. So the response we are seeing on here from the majority against the correlation of another poll can legitimately show the view of its strategy is alien to the best possible desired result. It is a direct comparison to a failed motor manufacturer campaign - when the perceived desire was thwarted because the targeted market was not the correct one.
Errrrm...the only people there, and there's not many in attendance it seems, are the ones that agree with them.
Errrrm...
We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.
They certainly appear a SISU out organisation at the expense of everything else. They've ended up with an echo chamber where at meetings the only people there, and there's not many in attendance it seems, are the ones that agree with them. We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.
Chief, where did you get that impression from? The "trust meeting" thread covers all that went on at the meeting, and clearly shows that view to be wrong.
There were a couple of people who didn't agree with us (I expected more) but no one from the trust board argued against us, just the opposite. They were listening, and were taking our criticism on board.
They certainly were not dismissive to the 4 of us putting our alternative viewpoint.
As said before, their actions going forward will be the true test. What they need is to understand it is not just 4 people who feel this way, hence how useful grendel's activity could be.
The minutes to me still reflected the way of thinking - there were acknowledgments of what people felt like sure but still the digs about pathetic crowds and the strange reference that no one is that bothered about wasps
Essentially the perception on here of th men reflects their approach and actions but is not what people on here thinks will bring any success. That’s the problem.
Then we need to keep attending meetings, and raising these points. tbf, I didnt expect 1 meeting to solve the issues we see, but it was a more positive start than I expected (certainly at the meeting anyway. The minutes covered most of it accurately, but Wasps were not mentioned much at the meeting as I recall, just us criticising the lack of trust support for the "protest")
The minutes to me still reflected the way of thinking - there were acknowledgments of what people felt like sure but still the digs about pathetic crowds and the strange reference that no one is that bothered about wasps
Essentially the perception on here of th men reflects their approach and actions but is not what people on here thinks will bring any success. That’s the problem.
I'm not talking just about one meeting. It would be pointless Grendel meeting this chap if we're working on the basis that because the board didn't shout you down at the last meeting everything is now OK.Chief, where did you get that impression from? The "trust meeting" thread covers all that went on at the meeting, and clearly shows that view to be wrong.
There were a couple of people who didn't agree with us (I expected more) but no one from the trust board argued against us, just the opposite. They were listening, and were taking our criticism on board.
They certainly were not dismissive to the 4 of us putting our alternative viewpoint.
As said before, their actions going forward will be the true test. What they need is to understand it is not just 4 people who feel this way, hence how useful grendel's activity could be.
I'm not talking just about one meeting. It would be pointless Grendel meeting this chap if we're working on the basis that because the board didn't shout you down at the last meeting everything is now OK.
While I applaud you for attending the meeting and raising the concerns this is not something that hasn't been flagged up to the trust numerous times before and ignored. As you say we need to see their actions going forward and the trusts summary of the meeting doesn't inspire me with confidence that anything will change.
I'm not talking just about one meeting. It would be pointless Grendel meeting this chap if we're working on the basis that because the board didn't shout you down at the last meeting everything is now OK.
While I applaud you for attending the meeting and raising the concerns this is not something that hasn't been flagged up to the trust numerous times before and ignored. As you say we need to see their actions going forward and the trusts summary of the meeting doesn't inspire me with confidence that anything will change.
We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.
It was the post they made on their website after the meeting that made me think that.It was this bit that made me ask...
I think you can read into that post what you like really. I was encouraged. It reflects concerns, and reports what was spoken about. They bigged up the Sixfields bit too much in my view, and in the rest there are occasional things I'd maybe think weren't quite as reported, but not significant enough for me to be that bothered as we all see things slightly differently.It was the post they made on their website after the meeting that made me think that.
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?