Astute
Well-Known Member
But Fisher is even more truthful. He told us we would find out soon at the start of the season.
But Fisher is even more truthful. He told us we would find out soon at the start of the season.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Mr Trench - I'm proposing you for any future committee positions. Anyone who can get homophones and tautology into a football thread deserves a little hero worship. Proof, if it were needed, that football has been usurped from the working classes. Must go now, Pimms in the fridge
I am educated, not posh. Born to a working class family in Canley.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well yes, these days being able to put together a sentence is enough to be deemed posh. Whoever put together this e-mail certainly struggled-for Labovitch's sake I hope it wasn't him...
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Interesting whether you think any of that email copy is defamatory towards any of the named individuals. In an email between 2 people that wouldnt be a problem. But publishing it on here would be. Those liable would be the publishers Hounddog1987 and err Nick for knowingly leaving it up.
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Probably someone privately educated.
I wasn't privately educated...until I was 9.
Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
The Sky Blue Trust represnts the fans, not the club. It appears to me that SISU is now trying to control the Trust as well ? For the information of SISU, the Trust is the true mouth piece of the fans, not the, in my opinion, the SCG whose views appear to be those of a small minority.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
sky blue trust shown up again as pro acl and anti ccfc
I TOLD YOU SO
I TOLD YOU SO
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about this post and the leaked email, and there are a couple of possible scenarios:
1) That the OP is somebody from the Sisu side that wants to make Jan and Steve's position untenable within the Trust.
Seems strange as they are the only ones that, going back to the SOC days, who were willing to engage with the club, though making the Trust more "militant" would give them more of an excuse not to deal with them, "We can't deal with these people, look it's all just Sisu Out and Fishface, Joyless rhetoric" etc.
2) That somebody from the Trust side is the OP and wants them removed in order to revert to the more militant SOC days, and can do this by saying "We can't deal with these people,they only want yes men, so no point even talking to them".
The OP works for both scenarios.
1) That the OP is somebody from the Sisu side that wants to make Jan and Steve's position untenable within the Trust.
Seems strange as they are the only ones that, going back to the SOC days, who were willing to engage with the club, though making the Trust more "militant" would give them more of an excuse not to deal with them, "We can't deal with these people, look it's all just Sisu Out and Fishface, Joyless rhetoric" etc.
2) That somebody from the Trust side is the OP and wants them removed in order to revert to the more militant SOC days, and can do this by saying "We can't deal with these people,they only want yes men, so no point even talking to them".
The OP works for both scenarios.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Anti SISU not CCFC
Which most of their mr members and most of Coventry City fans are at the moment.
It would be wired if they did not represent their members opinions and concerns.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
If the email is true.
It's shows SISU would like to dictate who attends a forum for which all the fans groups are supposed to be represented.
This will again limit our ability as fans to have a genuine meaningful consultation means with the club
It's shows SISU would like to dictate who attends a forum for which all the fans groups are supposed to be represented.
This will again limit our ability as fans to have a genuine meaningful consultation means with the club
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
That is the whole point of Parliamentary Privlilege.
If said outside Parliament could be be taken to court for defamation, if said inside Parliament can't be.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
That is the whole point of Parliamentary Privlilege.
If said outside Parliament could be be taken to court for defamation, if said inside Parliament can't be.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
This should not be allowed to happen. I am not sure how it can be prevented.
Also how many people are in the long distance supporters group.
Why is a person who resigned from what I imagine is quite a large group ( the London Supporters Group) because he could not agree with everyone else. Now in charge of a forum that gets all the groups together and he is by request of SISU dictating who can stay in or out?
Also how many people are in the long distance supporters group.
Why is a person who resigned from what I imagine is quite a large group ( the London Supporters Group) because he could not agree with everyone else. Now in charge of a forum that gets all the groups together and he is by request of SISU dictating who can stay in or out?
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
So... Option 1 then.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I'd suggest that that is exactly what the Trust have been doing and what makes the club feel they can make demands like this.
Tell me something, Mr Self Appointed Intelligent member (who doesn't know they difference between your and you're), how far has any party got with being nice to Sisu? name one that has achieved anything.
Seems to me it's just playing into their hands. The only thing fans have is a militant response. I'll post JFK again:
Sisu have made it quite clear that they have no interest in peaceful negotiations from day 1. Only a fool would keep attempting to get on their good side.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Maybe an attempt to expose the truth
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I clearly didn't have the benefit of being taught by you.
You should have gone on strike this week - its warmer.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Sums up my position in a nutshell. They're like chickens negotiating with the fox.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
So basically, everybody has fallen into the trap that Sisu have set then if scenario 1) is correct then?
Pavlov couldn't do any better.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They're not negotiating with the fans though, are they?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Explains why some of their more slavish supporters don't post on here anymore. Poor Ginetta - eaten by the fox she always loved.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Ah no, Mr Labovitch never said that, he was misquoted.
Ah no, sorry, turns out he wasn't. Seriously, how could you ever trust a man who claims to be misquoted when caught out?
SISU and Labovitch simply can't brook dissent.
They threaten action through the courts as a method to surpress free speech, but when it comes to it they're full of sh*t. We should never forget how they threatened to sue the trust over a link to the David Conn article (http://www.theguardian.com/football...entry-city-owners-northampton-league-one-sisu) where there is still no legal action or retraction, depsite SISU's bluster.
Now they're using sock puppets like HoundDog1987 to try to distract from the very legitimate questions that are being asked of the owners in terms of the accounts, and the SCG in terms of how it represents the fans.
For what it's worth, my advice to the Trust would be this: Don't get involved in discussions with the club about individual members or elected officials. It's not for the club to dictate who is on the board or to try to persuade the Trust to expel members the club doesn't like.
The Trust should also state, as a matter of policy, that any and all communications directed to their board members individually or to the Trust as a group, can be shared or published as they see fit. Similarly, communication from the Trust to the club should be similarly open.
Anyone from either side expecting confidentiality should be prepared to explain why it is required before it is granted, and that way we can stop these silly games.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
They are not actually negotiating with anyone.
The real problem though is the owners of the club are not bothering to answer the fans questions
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I am curious ...... how is attempting to be more professional, even handed and reasonable and dealing only in known facts actually continually attempting to get on the good side? It doesn't stop challenges to what is going on as far as I am aware. If it is then why are the club so rattled, seemingly more rattled than they have ever been by the Trust, the same Trust that Mr Labovitch said has few real members or little power (paraphrased). I am sure that certain people would love The Trust to prove themselves as a vociferous knee jerk militant rabble....... far easier to dismiss
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Indeed.
Indeed.
Tje first question to ask would be... why now?
After all, not like they haven't had the opportunity to go after supporters' groups for siding with Elliott and Hoffman against SISU in the past;
Not like they haven't had the opportunity to go after the Trust for talking to Haskell in the past.
Yet this all blows up when the Trust moderates itself, gets less shouty, more even handed, more... trustworthy.
So you have to ask what is to be gained for somebody going after that moderate angle, now?
Whoever is going after that, to me it proves the current direction of the Trust is the correct one.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
My point exactly, and many seem to be rushing headlong into what Sisu want.
Would say it's clever tactics by Sisu, but to be fair it doesn't really take an awful lot to set some people off.
We are ever closer to the JR,i can only think It is to build the profile but as you say the dossier will go right back .
I find the hounding of Micheal Orton bewildering ,they say they have signed his e-petition.
Are they really?
How do the Trust sit at the Table now ,without ejecting members ,It's blatantly obvious what the tactic is,Is It possible to sit in that meeting under the current atmosphere?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And as lordsummerisle says there are two obvious answers, neither of which are reason to let everything fall neatly into place and end up with shouty disorganised trust back.