SCG Meeting (1 Viewer)

shmmeee · Feb 27, 2014

What's all this about Weber Shandwick?

Appleton had a PR firm, Sisu have a PR firm, they actually DID "stir up a mob" in the form of GCBTTR (where are they now?).

It's fairly easy to bust the myth that the anti-Sisu feeling is stirred up by a PR company. You have records of conversations of City fans on here and GMK going back years that chart in great detail how people's opinions changed, what the majority view is, and who was around before this saga.

I'd say that the number of random "hey guys, what about the council" posts are far more suspicious. But I know Grendel and the like have been trolling for years, there's no suggestion he's doing it on Sisu's dollar (serious suggestion).

Every time I hear Fisher or Labovitch I worry for their mental health. I imagine Labovitch will end up rocking in a darkened flat muttering about Weber Shandwick.

Godiva · Feb 27, 2014

ML pointed out that PW had raised the subject of Weber Shandwick being retained by ACL with tax payers’ money. ML reiterated his concerns expressed at the last meeting that other parties might have been working with CCC in a campaign to discredit the Club and its owner and wanted to know if any parties other than ACL had ever been in contact with Weber Shandwick: CCC, Joe Elliott and the Sky Blue Trust.
ML asked if Steve Brown or Jan Mokrzycki had had any communications with Weber Shandwick. Steve Brown stated categorically several times during the meeting that he had not knowingly had any communications with them and Jan would need to be asked if he had. SBR subsequently phoned Jan and asked this of him. Jan’s answer was that he received a phone call from a Weber Shandwick representative the day before the charity match being held at the Ricoh at the beginning of the season regarding the wearing of ‘Save our City’ wristbands, but had no other contact, either as an individual or on behalf of the SBT. SBR reiterated that the SBT have had no dealings with Weber Shandwick.
PW asked SBR how he and JM differentiated when they are speaking as individuals or on behalf of SBT. ML was sceptical of individuals claiming to wear multiple hats, recalling Peter Knatchbull Hugesen voting for the CVA on behalf of the Alan Edward Higgs Centre Trust but against it as a shareholder of ACL.
TS asked for clarification of how the SBT communicate with the press – as individuals or as the SBT?
ML recognises that some people would prefer a different owner of the Club, and does not have a problem with them campaigning for such; but he does have a problem with a concerted effort by two or more parties to attempt to conspire and damage the business, which is unlawful. ML just wants everyone to be up front, honest and truthful. ML pointed out that when the case is heard, all relevant evidence is likely to be provided and the truth will be known.
PW advised that when he was Chairman of SCG, Tim Fisher had requested him several times to ask SBT members to stand down from the SCG, believing that their position is conflicted. However, PW stood against this and supported the SBT being a part of the SCG. However, he would now be annoyed if it transpires that the SBT has conspired with other parties against the current owners.
PW feels that the most disappointing thing is that there is no football being played in Coventry and the second most disappointing thing is the division of the fans. He feels that the SBT should help to unite the fans and can’t ‘wear two hats’. SBR advised that they are happy to talk to everyone, hold open meetings and encourage all fans to attend and hear both sides. PW pointed out that the SBT Minutes indicated continual re-writing of the SBT vision, and asked for clarification of what the SBT stands for. SBR stated that he is not bothered who owns the Club, but would like it in Coventry.

The part from the minutes being discussed here (please remove if violating copyrights)

shmmeee · Feb 27, 2014

Also: do the club seriously not understand why they are "doing well" on social media this season?

Let me see, is there any reason large amounts of people have been following City online this year compared to previous years?

shmmeee · Feb 27, 2014

Godiva said:
The part from the minutes being discussed here (please remove if violating copyrights)

If it's a factual record there's no copyright.

CovFan · Feb 27, 2014

Is there some sort of hat fetish going on at the club?

Noggin · Feb 27, 2014

Godiva said:
The part from the minutes being discussed here (please remove if violating copyrights)

Last meeting he was blaming Webber Shandwick for anti sisu feeling too, saying they had been made out to be the bad guys by a PR company, seemingly oblivious to the fact they are the bad guys and moving our football club against all sense to Northampton was going to clearly point that out to us with our without any PR firm.

Godiva · Feb 27, 2014

Noggin said:
Last meeting he was blaming Webber Shandwick for anti sisu feeling too, saying they had been made out to be the bad guys by a PR company, seemingly oblivious to the fact they are the bad guys and moving our football club against all sense to Northampton was going to clearly point that out to us with our without any PR firm.

They do seem a bit paranoid about WS and the Trust, but as my mom always told me - no smoke without a fire.
I think it may well be that ACL employed WS to do some lobby work on the council.
I also feel the Trust's mission has changed a few times over the past few years.

But - as they keep saying - it will all be clear during the JR (well, maybe not).

James Smith · Feb 27, 2014

Godiva said:
The part from the minutes being discussed here (please remove if violating copyrights)

So ML is claiming that this PR firm are being paid for with tax payers money. Is he saying that

A) The council are paying them directly and it is coming out of a council bank account which would be a concern, and would be taxpayers money.

Or

B) That the business in which the council is a shareholder namely ACL have retained a PR firm using money from that business, not taxpayers cash.

Everyone uses a PR firm don't they? Even as a small retail chain we've got one to try and get us positive press coverage.

Noggin · Feb 27, 2014

Godiva said:
They do seem a bit paranoid about WS and the Trust, but as my mom always told me - no smoke without a fire.
I think it may well be that ACL employed WS to do some lobby work on the council.
I also feel the Trust's mission has changed a few times over the past few years.

But - as they keep saying - it will all be clear during the JR (well, maybe not).

WS probably have tried to make acl look good and sisu look bad, thats obviously what they are paid to do. But ML talks like the reason people think badly of them (sisu) is because of WS poisoning peoples minds, which couldn't be more ridiculous.

If there were no pr firms involved and the media had just reported fact, and challenged any statements of spin from either side, didn't allow people to respond to questions with waffly spin that doesn't address the question. Then sisu would be thought of worse than they already are. The whole PR firm/media thing has been a positive force for them not a negative one. So to whine about the damage done to them by one pr firm is both hypocritical and doesn't represent the situation at all.

But as for no smoke without fire saying all that does is encourage more people with smoke machines and we have far to much of that already.

I personally think all of them having PR firms is a ridiculous waste of money and I resent the council(if they do), football club and administrator wasting money in this way, not so bothered about acl doing it, as I don't really care about their bank balance.

RoboCCFC90 · Feb 27, 2014

I do like this idea:

CCFC/SCG Minutes said:
ML put forward the idea of him holding a Fans’ Forum, along with Martin Reeves and Ann Lucas with Shane O’Connor to chair. ML had met with at least 60 fans in the past ten days who would be keen for this to happen. He would like to do this before Council Elections in May. The pros and cons of this was discussed at length. It was felt that Ann Lucas would not accept this invitation, possibly for the reason of prejudicing any JR court case. ML says that their legal advice has always been that telling the truth cannot prejudice any legal proceedings, so wonders why the council leadership feels there is a problem. JS was concerned for reputation, any slip of the tongue comments etc. After much discussion, however, JS agreed on behalf of the SCG to endorse this format of a Fans’ Forum, but pointed out that the audience would most likely be fired up by Weber Shandwick. KM believes that it could attract ‘Rent a Mob’. ML will write to Shane O’Connor to ask if he would Chair the Forum and if so, go ahead and book a venue and date.

Would it happen though? Doubtful I would assume..

Noggin · Feb 27, 2014

I'm sick of fans forums, they have all been a farce, by all means get these people together, broadcast it on the radio, get a chair person, shane o connor is ok but not great and get a long list of questions submitted from fans, insist on the questions being answered, have the chair person make sure the person answers the question and doesn't just waffle.

we end up with so many stupid time wasting questions otherwise.

I don't see the point at all though now, it's all been done, all we are seeing now is more propaganda and time wasting.

Just seems to me they are going to go ahead and book a date, obviously they won't feel Seppala needs to go, they will invite lucas who has already said they have moved on so won't feel the need to come, then they will criticise the council say its them that isn't trying to move things forward, propaganda and im sick of it.

Captain Dart · Feb 27, 2014

Noggin said:
WS probably have tried to make acl look good and sisu look bad, thats obviously what they are paid to do. But ML talks like the reason people think badly of them (sisu) is because of WS poisoning peoples minds, which couldn't be more ridiculous.

I don't give a flying f**k what a PR says, I form my own opinions and I'm prepared to challenge any inaccuracy or misleading statement from anyone.

Surely that goes for any sensible poster here.:thinking about:

Godiva · Feb 27, 2014

Noggin said:
WS probably have tried to make acl look good and sisu look bad, thats obviously what they are paid to do. But ML talks like the reason people think badly of them (sisu) is because of WS poisoning peoples minds, which couldn't be more ridiculous.

I personally think all of them having PR firms is a ridiculous waste of money and I resent the council(if they do), football club and administrator wasting money in this way, not so bothered about acl doing it, as I don't really care about their bank balance.

I agree with this. A complete waste and making a complex situation even more difficult to grasp. I also think it fuel the division of the fans.
Then it kind of put a question forward ... why was it necessary to employ a PR company at all? What was the reasoning behind?

chiefdave · Feb 27, 2014

Everytime I hear Labovich speak or read something like this I have to seriously question if he is fit to be in the role. He seems absolutly delusional! The way he talks about Weber Shandwich they must be the most effective PR company in the world!

James Smith · Feb 27, 2014

CovFan said:
Is there some sort of hat fetish going on at the club?

Possibly wasn't ML wearing his Ltd or Holdings directors hat at a meeting and therefore couldn't hear the offer ACL allegedly made.

Noggin · Feb 27, 2014

chiefdave said:
Everytime I hear Labovich speak or read something like this I have to seriously question if he is fit to be in the role. He seems absolutly delusional! The way he talks about Weber Shandwich they must be the most effective PR company in the world!

He's got the rest of them believing it too though, The Chairman's response to the suggestion of the fans forum is that the people there will all be fired up by Webber Shandwick, and KevMonks response is he thinks it will be filled by a rentamob.

I certainly dont feel this group represents our fans at all anymore, if they ever did they have been well and truly corrupted by constantly hearing one seriously twisted side of the story.

Godiva · Feb 27, 2014

chiefdave said:
Everytime I hear Labovich speak or read something like this I have to seriously question if he is fit to be in the role. He seems absolutly delusional! The way he talks about Weber Shandwich they must be the most effective PR company in the world!

Absolutely - but most lobbying is being done through private meetings. We do not know the extent of their work - ML seem to know something that upsets him greatly. What could that be I wonder?

kingharvest · Feb 27, 2014

Alright.

Sorry for the lack of feedback on here, I've kind of become slightly detached from the SCG recently. I feel that it has become non-consultative and rather a place where we talk for 2 hours about what's been in the press the past month. I don't blame the group for that, we are where we are. When we were talking about Match day experience and stuff it was good because it was things we could influence, but what can we really influence at the moment?

The group wanted to formalise the process a bit more by having a minutes secretary and those minutes being published on the ccfc site. So that's what's happening.

Aside from all of the above I'm struggling to give it time. I didn't attend the last meeting and won't be at the next, but I have said to the group that I think the views of people on the forums should continue to be represented - something I tried to do.

I'll be honest, since I started doing a few nii Lamptey shows I realised how bored I was of talking about all the Ricoh bollocks and how much I had missed just talking about the football again.

DaleM · Feb 27, 2014

JB asked if everyone felt that the whole idea should be checked over by a PR company. ML explained that London based PR companies don’t understand football in Coventry or the fanbase.

Fecking Bellend doesn't understand it either . Total W*****.

skyblueinBaku · Feb 27, 2014

ML said he was sceptical of people who claim to wear two hats. Was there not a meeting in the not too distant past when he was wearing the wrong one of his two hats to hear an offer from ACL? He also said that the club is now being run properly as a business for the first time in many years. Is he admitting that Sisu were not running the business properly until recent times?

chiefdave · Feb 27, 2014

ML explained that London based PR companies don’t understand football in Coventry or the fanbase.

Does he even think before he opens his mouth? A certain London based hedge fund don't seem to have much understanding of football in Coventry (or now the lack of it they have caused) or the fanbase.

Godiva said:
Absolutely - but most lobbying is being done through private meetings. We do not know the extent of their work - ML seem to know something that upsets him greatly. What could that be I wonder?

He's not talking about lobbying in private meetings, he's talking about the general fanbase being turned against SISU by WS which is absolute nonsense and an insult to the fans as he's basically saying we're not capable of looking at the evidence and drawing our own conclusions. The only thing that seems to upset him is that they are getting found out.

kingharvest said:
I feel that it has become non-consultative and rather a place where we talk for 2 hours about what's been in the press the past month.

Seems about right looking at the last couple of sets of minutes. It seems totally pointless now and just another way for ML to fire potshots at anyone he wants to try and blame for the mess SISU have got us into.

shmmeee · Feb 27, 2014

Godiva said:
They do seem a bit paranoid about WS and the Trust, but as my mom always told me - no smoke without a fire.
I think it may well be that ACL employed WS to do some lobby work on the council.
I also feel the Trust's mission has changed a few times over the past few years.

But - as they keep saying - it will all be clear during the JR (well, maybe not).

Then with all due respect your Mum was misguided at best and a Daily Mail reader at worst.

"No smoke without fire" is the motto of shit stirrers. Trust me, there's no conspiracy involving the Trust. Do you seriously think that people hate Sisu because of a PR campaign? The Trust's "mission" hasn't changed, but I agree that as fan feelings have shifted over time the Trust have tried to reflect that. Most of us have gone through a range of emotions from bargaining to anger to acceptance, it's reasonable that the body set up to represent us does the same.

I imagine most are like me in that they had no massive issue with Sisu until they moved us to Northampton (and their actions since).

As I said. These are accusations made by someone who's last job was tax evasion for a war criminal. They shouldn't be given any credence.

shmmeee · Feb 27, 2014

What's happened in page 9 of this thread? It's the only one I can't access at work and the filter says "Reason: Pornography" now I want to know what I'm missing!

DaleM · Feb 27, 2014

shmmeee said:
What's happened in page 9 of this thread? It's the only one I can't access at work and the filter says "Reason: Pornography" now I want to know what I'm missing!

Try It now . I swore . Sorry

wingy · Feb 27, 2014

Godiva said:
Absolutely - but most lobbying is being done through private meetings. We do not know the extent of their work - ML seem to know something that upsets him greatly. What could that be I wonder?

Nothing that a mud Salinger would know
Feel free to join in
CLUELESS

James Smith · Feb 27, 2014

ML was sceptical of individuals claiming to wear multiple hats, recalling Peter Knatchbull Hugesen voting for the CVA on behalf of the Alan Edward Higgs Centre Trust but against it as a shareholder of ACL.

What is so difficult to understand here? The AEHCT is a charity and as I understand it cannot reject a CVA hence why as chairman of the trustees PWKH voted for the CVA. They're also a different entity from the Higgs who own half of the shares in ACL, and it was ACL who rejected the CVA and (were represented at the meeting by someone else) not the Higgs.

Hobo · Feb 27, 2014

shmmeee said:
What's happened in page 9 of this thread? It's the only one I can't access at work and the filter says "Reason: Pornography" now I want to know what I'm missing!

I have just looked at page 9 and there are no images. Looking at the literary posts (without digesting them) Kingharvest seems to be baring all....but hardly pornography. sounds like a works filter Big Brother watching you!!!

James Smith · Feb 27, 2014

skyblueindorset said:
ML said he was sceptical of people who claim to wear two hats. Was there not a meeting in the not too distant past when he was wearing the wrong one of his two hats to hear an offer from ACL?

That's what I thought too - see post 85.

skyblueindorset said:
He also said that the club is now being run properly as a business for the first time in many years. Is he admitting that Sisu were not running the business properly until recent times?

All standard business practice

wingy · Feb 27, 2014

Been trying to post responses. In for an hour
So much for taking balanced approach hey
Leopards never change their spots
Vile people running our club

Godiva · Feb 27, 2014

shmmeee said:
Then with all due respect your Mum was misguided at best and a Daily Mail reader at worst.

"No smoke without fire" is the motto of shit stirrers. Trust me, there's no conspiracy involving the Trust. Do you seriously think that people hate Sisu because of a PR campaign? The Trust's "mission" hasn't changed, but I agree that as fan feelings have shifted over time the Trust have tried to reflect that. Most of us have gone through a range of emotions from bargaining to anger to acceptance, it's reasonable that the body set up to represent us does the same.

I imagine most are like me in that they had no massive issue with Sisu until they moved us to Northampton (and their actions since).

As I said. These are accusations made by someone who's last job was tax evasion for a war criminal. They shouldn't be given any credence.

I think you misunderstood my point. What I mean is that sisu/ML seem very upset/frustrated (that's the smoke) and that there must be a reason for this (there's the fire). I can't myself understand their reasons (I can't see the fire) but it would be nice to know.

chiefdave · Feb 27, 2014

The second meeting, where non-season ticket holders were invited (and some season ticket holders turned up who couldn’t make the first meeting), unfortunately was hijacked by those wishing to “have their say”.

So you are only allowed to have your say if you agree with them. What is the point of a Stadium Consultation Group if no one is allowed to have their own opinion?

Some fans have expressed a wish to have f & b available outside the ground as well as inside

Glad we're spending time looking at these vital issues.

The typical UK tour schedule to give access to most of the population involves the O2 (owned by AEG), the Midlands and Glasgow Arena (managed by them). The original deal which SISU agreed with CCC appealed to AEG because a Midlands venue is essential and the Ricoh could have been an alternative to NEC.

This is frankly absolute bollocks. There's no way you're going to have a tour schedule that includes the O2, Glasgow Hydro and then a football stadium in the 'Coventry area'. It would for a start be a logistical nightmare, most of the large arena tours are designed based on being able to fly staging, lighting etc from the roof, would be impossible / prohibitively expensive in a stadium, acts aren't going to move to an outdoor show which can't cope with the setup over an existing highly successful arenas such as the LG, NIA, NIC etc. And if AEG are so desperate for a Midlands venue surely they'll bid for the NEC?

chiefdave · Feb 27, 2014

James Smith said:
What is so difficult to understand here?

That's the thing, ML is supposed to be in this job as he knows what he's doing yet he can't grasp basic facts that everyone else can. The guy is an absolute idiot.

valiant15 · Feb 27, 2014

shmmeee said:
Then with all due respect your Mum was misguided at best and a Daily Mail reader at worst.

"No smoke without fire" is the motto of shit stirrers. Trust me, there's no conspiracy involving the Trust. Do you seriously think that people hate Sisu because of a PR campaign? The Trust's "mission" hasn't changed, but I agree that as fan feelings have shifted over time the Trust have tried to reflect that. Most of us have gone through a range of emotions from bargaining to anger to acceptance, it's reasonable that the body set up to represent us does the same.

I imagine most are like me in that they had no massive issue with Sisu until they moved us to Northampton (and their actions since).

As I said. These are accusations made by someone who's last job was tax evasion for a war criminal. They shouldn't be given any credence.

I think you're wrong. Most people wanted sisu gone before moving us to Northampton.

That last close season in the championship people were up in arms about the lack of investment and how poor the squad was. Then we had all the sisu out protests,flags at games etc and eventually we were relegated.

The move to Northampton looked to finally tip the likes of yourself over the edge.

My worry is that if they bring us back to the Ricoh the likes of yourself will roll over and forgive and forget.

Ive been saying since 2009(and i was slaughtered at the time) that sisu need_to go.

Unfortunately i was right all along.

RoboCCFC90 · Feb 27, 2014

kingharvest said:
Alright.

Sorry for the lack of feedback on here, I've kind of become slightly detached from the SCG recently. I feel that it has become non-consultative and rather a place where we talk for 2 hours about what's been in the press the past month. I don't blame the group for that, we are where we are. When we were talking about Match day experience and stuff it was good because it was things we could influence, but what can we really influence at the moment?

The group wanted to formalise the process a bit more by having a minutes secretary and those minutes being published on the ccfc site. So that's what's happening.

Aside from all of the above I'm struggling to give it time. I didn't attend the last meeting and won't be at the next, but I have said to the group that I think the views of people on the forums should continue to be represented - something I tried to do.

I'll be honest, since I started doing a few nii Lamptey shows I realised how bored I was of talking about all the Ricoh bollocks and how much I had missed just talking about the football again.

Fair play KH, you want to be able to affect things and not listen to the past, I support you in that.

Hobo · Feb 27, 2014

shmmeee said:
Then with all due respect your Mum was misguided at best and a Daily Mail reader at worst.

"No smoke without fire" is the motto of shit stirrers. Trust me, there's no conspiracy involving the Trust. Do you seriously think that people hate Sisu because of a PR campaign? The Trust's "mission" hasn't changed, but I agree that as fan feelings have shifted over time the Trust have tried to reflect that. Most of us have gone through a range of emotions from bargaining to anger to acceptance, it's reasonable that the body set up to represent us does the same.

I imagine most are like me in that they had no massive issue with Sisu until they moved us to Northampton (and their actions since).

As I said. These are accusations made by someone who's last job was tax evasion for a war criminal. They shouldn't be given any credence.

Why do I mistrust SISU?

1. What they say and what they do.
2. What have they achieved during tenancy.
3. Their closed shop approach.
4. Lack of accounts, transparency.
5. Track record before Coventry.
6. Massive turnover of figureheads.
7. No viable future plan.
8. A blame culture.
9. No empathy with customer base.
10. I just cannot trust someone who insists on anonymity, when heading a community based organisation (although not officially) on behalf of a capitalist driven money combine harvester.

It has taken all of 5 minutes to come up with that.

Positives

1. They have always paid the wage bill (the minimum requirement of an employer).

SCG Meeting (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency