NOW YOU KNOW WHY I WAS KEEPING QUIET!!!!!!!!!!!!
:claping hands:
I have spoken to board members both in person and on here and they don't see they are doing anything wrong.
You've misrepresented the issue though. How would sending an email out sayig Seppala is finally meeting going to slow things down? Or putting something on the website after?
I don't agree with fans representatives agreeing to keep fans in the dark about the meeting content, but even if they're going to do that there should be a report of the fact that the meeting happened.
Communication with the fanbase remains a massive issue with all this crap. The stadium move was handled shockingly from the start as has the clubs attitudes to fans in general. A couple of pints at Christ the King with a preselected crowd doesn't change that.
I know you and a few others in your camp see the average City fan an some kind of simpleton that shouldn't be allowed to meet the mighty owners in case we just shout and drag our knuckles, but personally I see us as members if not rightful owners of the club and should be involved in decision making if the club is to thrive.
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).
One other note: it's a lot easier as a representative to get agreement to work autonomously if your members actually see evidence of what you're doing working. They get a lot less patient if you can't prove your worth.
Also: the Trust is not a representative democracy, it's a pure democracy. Each member has a vote and they do not vote on representatives, they vote on a board. Decisions on policy still have to go out to the membership.
Maybe this confusion is part of the problem. The board members are not analogous to MPs, it's closer to unions but more democratic than that as well.
A final point on this epic rant: looking at other clubs run by their Trust, the boards behaviour and credibility is a big issue with lots of fans feeling left out. It may not seem important now, but the board understanding their role properly is vital if we are ever going to get a fan owned CCFC (the Trusts stated aim).
Edit 879: Typos! typos everywhere! Fat fingers, on phone, etc.
Yes, saying nothing and now claiming you knew all along Rob ? Don't be surprised if some don't believe it.
Rule 111
The Society shall ensure that minutes are kept of all
111.1 proceedings of meetings of the society
So what exactly was the breach of this specific rule?
Two easy points here...
1. What's the point of me wasting my time talking about meetings or whatever to people such as yourself who just don't want to believe me anyway?; &
2. I preempted this exact situation by commenting here. (Nobody seemed to have worked out the actual reason TF was looking a bit dishevelled: he'd been in negotiations.)
There's a reason people like you get offended at not being able to get the information they want from people. You don't have the ability to get it. Rather than take potshots at me/GCBTTR and make demands, why not try a more gentle approach and ask nicely? I'm not asking to have my arse kissed or anything like that but just some basic civility will get you a lot more than you're getting at the moment. Also, rather than calling me out in a public thread, why not drop me a PM first? Your current approach just makes it look like you are trying to score invisible internet points off me rather than get actual information.
There was a meeting of the society, with a third party, and minutes were not kept. If minutes were kept then they were not circulated, although not circulating is not a breach of the rule.
Irrelevant of the rules, I would have thought the SBT have an obligation to communicate to the members.
I am considering standing for election. I agree, the Trust will not be the decision makers on where we play, so I would mandate that attending meetings with the shackles of confidentially are only to occur with the general consensus of the membership via a meeting vote. The membership need to feel they are represented with the back-up of transparency. If the latter can't be upheld then it's for the majority to decide whether it's worth sacrificing.
There was a meeting of the society, with a third party, and minutes were not kept. If minutes were kept then they were not circulated, although not circulating is not a breach of the rule.
Irrelevant of the rules, I would have thought the SBT have an obligation to communicate to the members.
And how do you know minutes were not kept or a report made to the Board?
So now it isn't a breach of the rules or the constitution but in your opinion an obligation to report what was said. So it isn't actually breaking rules or being untrustworthy as has been suggested in this thread
People seem to think that the board didn't consider any of this.
The Board on this occasion decided that the best way forward at a sensitive time was not to mention the meeting. Perhaps playing PR games with the parties concerned was less important than putting pressure on the decision maker face to face to bring the club back.
Two easy points here...
1. What's the point of me wasting my time talking about meetings or whatever to people such as yourself who just don't want to believe me anyway?; &
2. I preempted this exact situation by commenting here. (Nobody seemed to have worked out the actual reason TF was looking a bit dishevelled: he'd been in negotiations.)
There's a reason people like you get offended at not being able to get the information they want from people. You don't have the ability to get it. Rather than take potshots at me/GCBTTR and make demands, why not try a more gentle approach and ask nicely? I'm not asking to have my arse kissed or anything like that but just some basic civility will get you a lot more than you're getting at the moment. Also, rather than calling me out in a public thread, why not drop me a PM first? Your current approach just makes it look like you are trying to score invisible internet points off me rather than get actual information.
There is nothing in the constitution about keeping minutes of meetings with 3rd parties.There was a meeting of the society, with a third party, and minutes were not kept. If minutes were kept then they were not circulated, although not circulating is not a breach of the rule.
Irrelevant of the rules, I would have thought the SBT have an obligation to communicate to the members.
Call you out? a bit dramatic that, especially as it was you who had mentioned the meeting on, let me see, yes, a public thread...
Internet points? LOL As if I could give a fook about whatever they are
Seriously, you have made yourself look a bit foolish here.
What statement?
Who is "we"?
Not having a "go" (as you call it), these are genuine questions as you say there is more info in the statement.
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?