tbf, and we're going down a digression that maybe isn't helpfulif I wanted to plan something big such as, well... a new stand or even a new ground I wouldn't waste my time with formal talks and formal applications, I'd sound out the relevant people if it was even worth my while bothering, first.
Anyway FWIW the rationale behind Arena 2000 was kind of sound to me, and certainly wouldn't have fit where HR was. Once we downscaled however, other motivations came into play...
Everyone is biased.
You would have to have had a lobotomy to not have an opinion (which instantly gives you a bias) on the state of the club at the moment.
I would check 'off-line' too, but in fact for something like this I wouldn't need to. Football ground redevelopments in residential areas are always going to be very, very hard to get through PP I'd venture. Blaming the council for that is ridiculous, which is where I came in, I think...
I don't think the fans of Newcastle would agree with you.
In another thread it was stated that Trust leadership met with Joy and the details have been kept secret from Trust Members at the request of SISU.
There may be nothing to these meetings but as representatives of the members they should not be concealing information from the members they represent. They Trust should circulate to members:
- Details of the meeting date/time, attendees and duration.
- Document the minutes of the discussion
The meeting was held as you represent the membership and as such this information should be with the members. This fails to provide confidence in the leadership providing a communication between the members/fans and the owners and breaks the Trust constitution rules.
Joined August.
3 posts?
No replies?
Well what a surpriseI hope you're not insinuating that someone starts a thread about the Trust to deflect attention:thinking about: No you couldn't be.
I'm assuming that you haven't read the Wikipedia page on St James Park then?
Just read it yes - why? City centre site which the council firmly objected to giving permission and eventually the club had its way. Why?
In what context does this argument fit against the present circumstance- This is yesterday's argument isn't it?Just read it yes - why? City centre site which the council firmly objected to giving permission and eventually the club had its way. Why?
No, CCC who refused planning permission for further redevelopment to expand the capacity of Highfield Road ( just for the record, this club owned a row of properties in Thacknall Street ). Please ask Uncle Joe or Geoffrey Robinson MP.
Why haven't the Sky Blue Trust replied to stop all of the theories appearing on this thread?
Why haven't the Sky Blue Trust replied to stop all of the theories appearing on this thread?
For those that don't agree with how the Trust are doing things its election time so why not stand yourself
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/114-latest-news/415-election-to-trust-board
SISU's action were condemned by the JR, but if you can sit there and honestly say that the motivations of the council between 2000 and 2008 were with the clubs best interests at heart then you are deluded.
Why haven't the Sky Blue Trust replied to stop all of the theories appearing on this thread?
And why is it that posters who demand answers never attend meetings to ask these questions?
But demand for them to be answered on a social network site.
Sorry but I find it very very strange and suspicious if I wanted answers I would attend the meetings, and put these forward where they would have to give you an answer.
Look forward to seeing you at the next meeting?
Now there's an opinion that's based on a general dislike of the council rather than backed by any actual data I'd venture.
It's just lazy thinking, like RFC's assertion that the council turned down planning for HR when there is no evidence of any plan on the table, or the good old bullshit about the Ricoh being a cash cow which has been nailed dead so often now that it's become a joke.
The delusion here is that the council, elected by the people of Coventry, led by a CCFC fan, and where most of the staff are from the city, would for some unspecified reason try to stitch the club up.
The people who propose this rubbish disregard every inconvenient fact from the point the council narrowly voted to support the build of the Ricoh with public money, to the point where SISU got hammered in court on the JR. And they've got the nerve to call others deluded! Unbelievable.
Go read the neutral Judge's opinion on this again, and compare what he says about the actions of our owners compared to the actions of the council.
There is little point in any of this. The decision about where we play and any return to the Ricoh will be concluded by a tiny number of people, and not one of them is a part of The Trust. Therefore any meetings between any others are as irrelevant as this thread. Let's just be patient and do what we choose to do in the meantime eh?
SISU don't look like they are going anywhere. So the Trust is going to have to find a way to engage with them in respect to the club going forward.
That's the real challenge for the Trust in the future.
It would be good to have a proper "paying to attend games" supporter or two on the Trust board. The representation is all a bit one dimensional right now. Mind you, I don't think it could be Porky, that might be a bit too left field.
Too left field? If supporting your club to the bitter end from the discomfort of a Sixfields stadium seat then the left field is the field I want to be in. The field full of arm chairs and key board warriors is not the field for me
I think we've stumbled on to one of the key issues with representative democracy: where you draw the line between constituents directing their representatives and the representatives working off their own backs in what they believe is the interests of their members?
The problem with demanding reps clear everything with members is that it slows down the whole process. A recent example of this is with the FL making a decision re: Otium payment to ACL. It had to be signed of at a board meeting and those were scheduled on certain dates so we had to wait just over 2 months for the decision.
I'd have to ask OP and others making similar complaints: have you contacted the SBT board / chair / secretary on this issue and what response have you got?
Engage with SISU by all means, just not at the expense of the member's constitutional rights, unless prior permission is given. We're not looking for the Trust to become a 'nanny state' by deciding what's best for us to know or not know. It's about the Trust Board representing the views of the wider membership.
Simple.
A vote for PORK is a vote for equality and transparency.
On that note: ready to tell everyone what happened in the six hour meeting? (well done for actually reporting that that happened by the way).
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?