Sky Blue Trust and Fan Ownership (2 Viewers)

Be of little surprise if their is another Haskell/Trust scenario. Nice to see the usual 'join the board' line trotted out. How about as a fan representation group, they listen to fans? Take their opinions on? Surely that would be easier than running elections every 5 minutes as someone has an idea or suggestion.

SkyBlueZack said:

Be of little surprise if their is another Haskell/Trust scenario. Nice to see the usual 'join the board' line trotted out. How about as a fan representation group, they listen to fans? Take their opinions on? Surely that would be easier than running elections every 5 minutes as someone has an idea or suggestion.

Click to expand...

It's a pity you don't take them up on the trotted on board line. I would say they are listening to fans, sorry you mean they're not listening to you personally get you now

Listening to me or others of the same opinion as it doesn't fit with the boards stance. That pretty much sums it up. I, along with others wanted a statement against Wasps being here. Not done. CJ stated there was one, I googled it and found nothing. He said he would find it and put it up. Nothing. I can only assume no such statement exists.

I would say they are listening to fans, the ones with the same opinions as themselves. Way to go!

Here's a thought.

43000 at Wembley.
20000 signed the CET petition.

How many SBT members are there? What are they doing to increase the membership, creating more funds, representing more fans?

SkyBlueZack said:

Listening to me or others of the same opinion as it doesn't fit with the boards stance. That pretty much sums it up. I, along with others wanted a statement against Wasps being here. Not done. CJ stated there was one, I googled it and found nothing. He said he would find it and put it up. Nothing. I can only assume no such statement exists.

I would say they are listening to fans, the ones with the same opinions as themselves. Way to go!

Click to expand...

Problem is Zack if you go to a trust meeting you will find that there are people there with views that you would perceive more in line with your own. However I would suggest you are talking about one or two bodies in the room, no more. So what you seem to be suggesting is that the trust board ignore the view of the vast vast majority of people who bother to turn up to comply with the view of the couple of people who bother to turn up because they have a view more in line with what you want the trust board to say. How does that work? How are the trust board supposed to do that and claim representation of the fan base if they ignore the majority who can be arsed to put themselves in front of them? The only way the trust board can address their direction is if there are more people in the room asking for a different direction. If they're not turning up you can and them can blame the trust and the board as much as they and you like but the truth is if you're going to apportion blame which you and others clearly do then I'm afraid you and others need to look closer to home.

So they will only accept views and opinions if they are expressed in a room at a meeting? Wow.

Edit: Or if you're a board member or run to be one.

SkyBlueZack said:

So they will only accept views and opinions if they are expressed in a room at a meeting? Wow.

Click to expand...

You can express your views in many different ways but you only seem to be interested in expressing yours as a faceless member of a fans forum and then be expected to be taken seriously. Wow.

Have you ever attended a meeting and had your view expressed in what could be conceived as a different view in circumstances that they can be taken seriously? Have you ever written to the trust either by email or by post expressing your views? Have you ever filled out any of the questionnaires that appear from time to time on the trusts site? Have you ever approached anyone from the board and spoken to them personally about your views and asked them to be considered?

I have done all of the above, probably why my view gets taken into consideration. Maybe you have too, maybe everyone else who moans about the trust has too. Maybe they just prefer to play the anonymous victim on a football forum. Who knows.

No, the trust come on here. I have raised points. They ignore them. Not hard to grasp. Also with a first name of Zack, living in Coventry, with my views on Wasps, wouldn't be hard to find. So not really faceless as such. Your view is the same as the trust, that's why it's taken into consideration. It's not the medium of communication you use, just that you agree with them.

Keep defending them though Tony, you do a grand job.

SkyBlueZack said:

No, the trust come on here. I have raised points. They ignore them. Not hard to grasp. Also with a first name of Zack, living in Coventry, with my views on Wasps, wouldn't be hard to find. So not really faceless as such. Your view is the same as the trust, that's why it's taken into consideration. It's not the medium of communication you use, just that you agree with them.

Keep defending them though Tony, you do a grand job.

Click to expand...

Defend what? It's stating the bleeding obvious. My view is the same or more in line as the majority who bother to directly communicate with the trust by whatever official media, the trust then rightly take on the majority view. It's what they're supposed to do. I know my view is more in line with the majority of members (and non members from open meetings) because I can be bothered to turn up to the odd meeting and hear first hand what is being said and discussed, I see the results from questionnaires that I've been bothered to fill in and in my experience you'll also find that those involved in running the trust are approachable in person and not just at the meetings, I've spoken to a couple also at games. The direction of the trust is driven by it's members majority view. I don't understand why you either don't get that or choose to ignore that.

You obviously don't take that opportunity and then moan when your view isn't taken into consideration which is quite frankly stupid and down to yourself no one else. Maybe you just enjoy playing the victim.

clint van damme said:

tin foil hat time but I keep hearing that there is something to the take over rumours and things are further down the line than people realise.

Could the real reason for the survey have been fact finding for the parties involved?

Click to expand...

ccfc92 said:

Click to expand...

As huggy bear would say, that's the word on the street

Fan owned Pompey just got promoted, we won't be playing them next season.

Fan owned Exeter could well be joining them and fan owned Wimbledon too. We don't represent the fans. We represent our membership.

We hold a board election every year not every 5 minutes. Why are you lying Zack? Anyway, the reason why this happens is to keep it democratic. What's the problem with that? Do you have an issue with democracy?!

CJ_covblaze said:

Fan owned Exeter could well be joining them and fan owned Wimbledon too. We don't represent the fans. We represent our membership.

We hold a board election every year not every 5 minutes. Why are you lying Zack? Anyway, the reason why this happens is to keep it democratic. What's the problem with that? Do you have an issue with democracy?!

Click to expand...

Lying about what?

SkyBlueZack said:

Lying about what?

Click to expand...

That elections are held every 5 minutes.

CJ_covblaze said:

Fan owned Exeter could well be joining them and fan owned Wimbledon too. We don't represent the fans. We represent our membership.

We hold a board election every year not every 5 minutes. Why are you lying Zack? Anyway, the reason why this happens is to keep it democratic. What's the problem with that? Do you have an issue with democracy?!

Click to expand...

So you should tell the local papers not to call you a fan group but a CCFC Membership Club.

SkyBlueZack said:

Be of little surprise if their is another Haskell/Trust scenario. Nice to see the usual 'join the board' line trotted out. How about as a fan representation group, they listen to fans? Take their opinions on? Surely that would be easier than running elections every 5 minutes as someone has an idea or suggestion.

Click to expand...

My point is if you have an idea that is aimed at any party but SISU the line trotted out is join the board. Therefore for people to have a say an election would be required every 5 minutes. It wasn't a claim that the trust currently hold elections every 5 minutes. Not sure how it reads any other way.

CJ_covblaze said:

That elections are held every 5 minutes.

Click to expand...

Genuine question for you CJ. If sisu decide to move us out of Cov again, on what grounds would the trust oppose it given the trust didn't oppose wasps moving from the south to here?

Generally Midfield said:

Genuine question for you CJ. If sisu decide to move us out of Cov again, on what grounds would the trust oppose it given the trust didn't oppose wasps moving from the south to here?

Click to expand...

I would oppose it, like I always have done with their move. I feel sorry for their fans that were negatively effected back then. Still do now and would rather they weren't here. Don't get me wrong it has helped the economy and profile of our city. Just wish it didn't take another club coming in to do that.

Anyway our concern is Coventry City and the relevant stakeholders. Obviously our concern may extend elsewhere. E.g. When we see what's going on at Blackpool, Orient, Charlton, Chesterfield, Forest, etc. Our main goal is to try to secure the future of our own club though.

CJ_covblaze said:

Don't get me wrong it has helped the economy and profile of our city.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that, frankly.

In absolute terms, maybe... but there's enough theory about that says the associated loss that will result from marginalising CRFC and CCFC will have more of an effect than anything Wasps could bring in terms of profile... and exonomically, long term that would have a negative affect.

So. Wimbledon, higher league than us next season. Portsmouth, higher league than us next season. Exeter, still have something to play for this season.

Fan ownership 2 maybe 3, hedge fund ownership 0.

Captain Dart said:

Fan owned Pompey just got promoted, we won't be playing them next season.

Click to expand...

Fan ownership saved Portsmouth from disaster but it can only take a club so far

• Jim White

27 March 2017 • 4:13pm

• 
  
• 
  

0 Comments

Portsmouth fans currently own the club by a Supporters Trust Credit: Getty images
At Portsmouth the fans do not find anything amusing in the idea of a Mickey Mouse owner. Alexandre Gaydamak, Sulaiman al-Fahim, Balram Chainrai: the long succession of cartoon clowns who plunged their club to the very lip of extinction provided neither fun nor japes.

No club has been through it quite to the degree that Pompey did at the beginning of this decade. What a miserable time that was for the supporters. As a procession of owners presided over administration, insolvency and a vertiginous plunge down the football pyramid, ending up in League Two just five seasons after having won the FA Cup, it appeared only the football authorities could regard them as fit and proper persons. It is hard to believe any cartoon rodent would have made a worse job of things than that shower. All of them were greedy, several were fraudulent and at least one turned out not actually to exist. These were Micky Mice so cack-handed they made Donald Trump look competent.

So you can understand that when a man who actually made his money out of Mickey arrives on the South Coast promising a rocket-fuelled ride back to the Premier League there might be more than a moment’s hesitation among the supporters before they string out the bunting. Yet the irony is, Michael Eisner, the billionaire former Disney executive who is seeking to take over the club, might just represent a first among putative Portsmouth owners: a man prepared to put his money where his mouth is.


His arrival presents fans with the deepest of dilemmas. As invariably happens when a club reaches the point of destruction, back in 2013 it was left to supporters to keep the place alive. The shyster owners had long ago fled Fratton Park as hundreds of Pompey diehards paid £1,000 each to revivify the object of their obsession. And what a fine job they did. The once comedy finances are now in order; debt has been eradicated, the stadium is safe in club ownership, there is a smart new training ground.

But there is also a sense of restricted ambition. After being resuscitated by the Supporters Trust the club has gone about as far as it can without a serious injection of capital. And no matter how vigorously buckets are shaken outside Fratton Park, the sort of money needed to project Pompey back up the divisions is unlikely to be found in the pockets of regular match-goers. Hence the seriousness with which Eisner’s approach is being taken.


Former Portsmouth chairman Alexandre Gaydamak Credit: Getty Images
With his arrival the supporters have reached a point of profound choice. Are they happy for the club to remain a fan-owned operation, its growth entirely organic? Or, given that understandably he wishes to be in sole charge were he to buy, do they cede control to a wealthy owner in return for the promise of future good times? After all, the latter worked at Bournemouth and at Swansea, where fans rescued the club before handing over to outsiders to underwrite their upward trajectory.


What Portsmouth supporters need to discover is whether Eisner is another Maxim Demin, the man behind Bournemouth’s stellar rise, or another Vladimir Antonov, the Lithuanian fraudster who briefly held sway at Fratton Park. They have 70 days to find out. Which is roughly the time Antonov was in charge.

That is the period Eisner has been given by the Supporters' Trust to make appropriate due diligence of the business. But – since Eisner will require the backing of 75 per cent of the supporter owners to achieve his takeover - it is him fans should be checking out before they vote on whether to gift him their club. A plebiscite in which the voters have to make a choice between remaining with stark reality or gambling on wild promises of a glorious future: it sounds horribly familiar. For Portsmouth supporters, this is not a Mickey Mouse vote.