Sky Blue Trust not backing a Boycott. (2 Viewers)

I was eleven in 87

Well-Known Member
Monday night's Sky Blue Trust meeting at the Albany Club attracted around 100 supporters to hear very informative talks by Ashley Brown, who led the Portsmouth supporters' takeover and is now Chief Executive of Supporters Direct, and Jamie Mathie the Club Development Manager at SD.

James outlined the principles of supporters' involvement in ownership, giving examples of where it has been successful and how other groups had gone about it. Ashley gave a detailed account of what had actually happened at Pompey and the model they adopted with a mixture of several thousand fans buying shares individually or collectively and a dozen wealthier fans making up the ownership.

Both stressed that it wouldn’t be easy. In fact due to the current unbalanced financial structure of football that whilst things were slowly changing for the better it would be a financial struggle for a supporter owned club to compete financially with clubs with benefactors who were willing to lose tens of millions each season pursuing the Premiership dream. However supporter ownership would give a club better gates, better community involvement, better relationships with businesses and local authorities, and local media. However, it wasn’t a panacea or an easy road ‘

Roger Ellis, the Sky Blue Trust Secretary, outlined that the Trust had been working in the background on several contingency plans to meet a variety of situations that might arise, from a willing seller, to administration and even liquidation. He stated that legal and financial experts had been appointed and had already provided invaluable advice assistance. Roger stated that the Trust had approached Joy Seppala twice asking for a without prejudice meeting to discuss a possible exit strategy for SISU but was rebuffed by SISU’s lawyers and an inaccurate story put about by Tim Fisher through the now disbanded SCG. These initial rejections will not dampen the Trust's efforts as things cannot be allowed to continue to deteriorate on and off the field any further.

The over-riding message from both speakers was that it can be done. Supporters working together can be very powerful. Not all supporters will agree but as long as a majority are on message anything can be achieved.

The meeting was then opened to the floor and a variety of questions and opinions were offered but all pointed to the fact that those in attendance all wanted a change of ownership before its too late.

There was a call from one individual asking for a boycott of season tickets - a campaign the Trust will not back as this, just like attendance at Sixfields, is an individual's decision. However it was pointed out by others that there really was no need for a boycott as people were doing it off their own bat anyway. When a straw poll was taken, 75% of attendees currently had season tickets but not one said they would be renewing next year. To make it abundantly clear, no-one - neither the Trust nor the Jimmy Hill Way - is “calling for“ nor promoting a season ticket boycott. Supporters will decide on that for themselves. It was made clear by both organisations that administration was neither desirable nor certain.

Following advice from Supporters Direct the Trust intends to conduct a large scale questionnaire of supporters to gauge matters such as what they would like to happen to their club, what their expectations would be and how that might be achieved. Details of the questionnaire will be released soon.

Another attempt will be made to meet with SISU to discuss an exit strategy. The Trust hopes that there is a change of attitude and Ms Seppala will at least hear what they have to say.
 

Nick

Administrator
While it's good that it's cleared up and distanced from a boycott, whats with this bit that's underlined? It just doesn't read right as it just comes across that they are cocky that people will boycott anyway.

Supporters will decide on that for themselves

I guess it's time to stop going on about administration being a way to get the club into the fans hands also then ;)
 
Last edited:

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
Another bout of administration is always a possibility imo the important thing is we are prepared for all possible eventualities that's what Pompey did and eventually were able to bid and buy their club plus some adjoining land.
 

Monners

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the OP. Very informative and a useful first step. The wider questionnaire is a good idea and could have a higher than expected response in view of a potential trip to a cup final.
 

Esoterica

Well-Known Member
While it's good that it's cleared up and distanced from a boycott, whats with this bit that's underlined? It just doesn't read right as it just comes across that they are cocky that people will boycott anyway.

Supporters will decide on that for themselves

I guess it's time to stop going on about administration being a way to get the club into the fans hands also then ;)
It didn't read like that to me and I am usually critical of Trust communications. Think this is a good one and the underlining is just highlighting that it is an individuals decision.
 

Nick

Administrator
It didn't read like that to me and I am usually critical of Trust communications. Think this is a good one and the underlining is just highlighting that it is an individuals decision.

Might just be me, it's just the references of "people will do it themselves" attitude. Which I don't doubt they will, just no need to say it multiple times when trying to distance from a boycott :)
 

Monners

Well-Known Member
There is a need to say it as it was mis reported as the main element of the discussion, and that they do or may support a boycott.

The statement is pretty clear to me and timely
 

Nick

Administrator
There is a need to say it as it was mis reported as the main element of the discussion, and that they do or may support a boycott.

Yep, it was needed.

Just needs to stop the mentions of admin being a way to get hold of the club ;)

Hopefully a lot will have been taken on board from the speakers as well!
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Actually good work from the trust, who I'm massively critical of. They should be positioning themselves as fan representatives and not a protest group, which is how they've appeared in the past, so this survey sounds like a good idea.
 

Nick

Administrator
Actually good work from the trust, who I'm massively critical of. They should be positioning themselves as fan representatives and not a protest group, which is how they've appeared in the past, so this survey sounds like a good idea.

Yep, a decent e-survey is a good idea to gather views. Will happily sticky it on here etc to get views.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Needed to be made clear by the Trust certainly and this is a decent summary and statement. So perhaps people and reporters can now stop the ill informed claims of conspiracy and forced administration

The research and planning was never done to try to force a change of ownership, or to create a situation that it might occur. The work/planning done was and is simply to be prepared should the club become available or the worst happens, administration strikes again under these owners. So that the fans can be involved in any solution to save the club or buy it. There is no point waiting for events to happen and then saying I wish we had been ready. It is a safety net for the future of the club should it become available for sale or necessary. If anything the planning was done because of a fear of administration

The reality is unless SISU want to sit down to talk about it then it is practically impossible to change ownership either in the open market or by administration. SISU are in control of both scenarios by nature of the loans etc outstanding. The Trust planning has known this from the get go.
 
Last edited:

skybluebeduff

Well-Known Member
It must be a good statement. Nicks making a twat out of himself trying to pick it apart. Give it up Nick FFS.
He's entitled to his opinion, although there is nothing in that statement that needs addressing. Nick has even said he'll post the e-survey on here, if he hated the trust that much, why would he bother doing that?
 

Nick

Administrator
He's entitled to his opinion, although there is nothing in that statement that needs addressing. Nick has even said he'll post the e-survey on here, if he hated the trust that much, why would he bother doing that?

If it's a survey to get fan's views then I cant see why fans wouldn't want to fill it in. As long as it is serious and professional there's no issue.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
He's entitled to his opinion, although there is nothing in that statement that needs addressing. Nick has even said he'll post the e-survey on here, if he hated the trust that much, why would he bother doing that?
Double bluff? Double agent? Cuckoo in the sparrow's nest? Mata Hari?
 

skybluebeduff

Well-Known Member
Double bluff? Double agent? Cuckoo in the sparrow's nest? Mata Hari?
wqEsIl.gif


Like this... ;)
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
I am generally fairly sympathetic to Les Reid's opinions, but I have to say I think he's lost the plot a bit of late. It feels like he's part of a proxy war or poxy war if you like.

I don't know if he is asked by SISU to put out some of the stories (doubtful imo), or whether he has taken too personally some of the criticism that has come his way from certain quarters.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
If it's a survey to get fan's views then I cant see why fans wouldn't want to fill it in. As long as it is serious and professional there's no issue.

several clubs have done it so Id imagine they can cherry pick the best bits from those and hopefully come up with something worthwhile.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I would think it would only be right for the following to happen

the CT to actually include at least a link to the full statement in their article today, better still print it all not just pick out parts of it and do that incorrectly. The Trust did not say fans ownership was an easy path as the CT misquotes. Quite the opposite

The Observer to print the statement in full given the headlines they ran with yesterday and without detailed comment

I wont hold my breath though waiting for either to happen. All over the story but neither could be bothered to attend the meeting
 

cloughie

Well-Known Member
It must be a good statement. Nicks making a twat out of himself trying to pick it apart. Give it up Nick FFS.

Especially when he puts in quotes something that wasn't said as below

Might just be me, it's just the references of "people will do it themselves" attitude. Which I don't doubt they will, just no need to say it multiple times when trying to distance from a boycott :)
 

rupert_bear

Well-Known Member
Re a second bout of administration:
Not read it on here may have missed it but what was said by the Pompey they went into administration a second time and I think he said their Trust made a move to buy but someone else was declared the preferred bidder, aperemyly another dodge pot but the Football League no less wouldn't sanction that bid which left the fans group a clear run. Perhaps that's where some are saying going into administration could make buying ccfc easier, think it'll be a lot harder than that !
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
With admin it's sort of not Sisu deciding on the winning bid. Also the FA have a chance to decide who gets the golden share.

As we saw though neither of those mean much in reality. But I think it's fair to say admin is slightly more likely to result in Sisu going than trying to discuss a bid with someone who won't meet and has repeatedly said they won't sell.
 
Last edited:

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Especially when he puts in quotes something that wasn't said as below

Might just be me, it's just the references of "people will do it themselves" attitude. Which I don't doubt they will, just no need to say it multiple times when trying to distance from a boycott :)

I'm sure that was just an honest mistake not spin ;)
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
With admin it's sort of not Sisu deciding on the winning bid. Also the FA have a chance to decide who gets the golden share.

As we saw though neither of those mean much in reality. But I think it's fair to say admin is slightly more likely to result is Sisu going than trying to discuss a bid with someone who won't meet and has repeatedly said they won't sell.
SISU are in the driving seat in admin the same as they were before.

This is interesting. The rules may have changed since last time:

Football League Insolvency Regulation Changes: A Brief Summary | Daniel Geey | The Final Score on Football Law
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
With admin it's sort of not Sisu deciding on the winning bid. Also the FA have a chance to decide who gets the golden share.

As we saw though neither of those mean much in reality. But I think it's fair to say admin is slightly more likely to result in Sisu going than trying to discuss a bid with someone who won't meet and has repeatedly said they won't sell.

That's the dilemma. Damned if we do damned if we don't. Whenever they decide to go it's hard to see how it won't be on their terms and I'm struggling to see a scenario where their terms have to include the survival of the club. Unless someone is willing to pay them well over the odds they're going to lose what they've put in, they aren't going to sell for a quid. They may as well asset strip then liquidate especially if they can run at breakeven in the meantime. I doubt anyone at SISU or their investors will shed a tear or lose one wink of sleep in that scenario. Scary times are afoot.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I am generally fairly sympathetic to Les Reid's opinions, but I have to say I think he's lost the plot a bit of late. It feels like he's part of a proxy war or poxy war if you like.

I don't know if he is asked by SISU to put out some of the stories (doubtful imo), or whether he has taken too personally some of the criticism that has come his way from certain quarters.

Pretty sure that this didn't happen last time.

"2.Once appointed, an Administrator will be required to market the club to prospective buyers for a minimum of 21 days. Within that period, the Administrator is obligated to meet the club’s supporter’s trust and provide the trust with the chance to bid for the club."

That confirms that the trust needs to be ready to bid ahead that scenario regardless of how likely or unlikely it might be.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
SISU are in the driving seat in admin the same as they were before.

This is interesting. The rules may have changed since last time:

Football League Insolvency Regulation Changes: A Brief Summary | Daniel Geey | The Final Score on Football Law

Yeah, hence the "sort of". I mean technically someone else could come up with a better offer, but it's bloody unlikely. Point is that without admin it's unlikely anyone would even get to bid.

I suppose it's like how I can access The Ritz technically, but I can't afford it.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Yeah, hence the "sort of". I mean technically someone else could come up with a better offer, but it's bloody unlikely. Point is that without admin it's unlikely anyone would even get to bid.

I suppose it's like how I can access The Ritz technically, but I can't afford it.
Aye, I offered to buy a Bentley last week. They don't take luncheon vouchers though.
 

Nick

Administrator
Especially when he puts in quotes something that wasn't said as below

Might just be me, it's just the references of "people will do it themselves" attitude. Which I don't doubt they will, just no need to say it multiple times when trying to distance from a boycott :)
Sorry, you are right it's not a direct quote it's the impression given.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
That's the dilemma. Damned if we do damned if we don't. Whenever they decide to go it's hard to see how it won't be on their terms and I'm struggling to see a scenario where their terms have to include the survival of the club. Unless someone is willing to pay them well over the odds they're going to lose what they've put in, they aren't going to sell for a quid. They may as well asset strip then liquidate especially if they can run at breakeven in the meantime. I doubt anyone at SISU or their investors will shed a tear or lose one wink of sleep in that scenario. Scary times are afoot.
but what advantage liquidating the club have over giving it away with provisos for future payments if we got to the Premiership?
It would be an opportunity, albeit slim, to rinse a bit more cash out of the club at some point in the future.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
but what advantage liquidating the club have over giving it away with provisos for future payments if we got to the Premiership?
It would be an opportunity, albeit slim, to rinse a bit more cash out of the club at some point in the future.

Hits us with a guaranteed points deduction, then they don't have to bother us again.

Depends whether you think they're keeping hold of us for financial reasons or personal reasons I suppose.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top