Sky Blue Trust Secretive Meeting(s) with SISU (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Rationalizer
- Start date
- Status
duffer
Well-Known Member
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
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...
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...
bigfatronssba
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don't think the fans of Newcastle would agree with you.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'm assuming that you haven't read the Wikipedia page on St James Park then?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Well what a surprise
I hope you're not insinuating that someone starts a thread about the Trust to deflect attention:thinking about: No you couldn't be.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Who Me Never!!!
Well what a surprise
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Just read it yes - why? City centre site which the council firmly objected to giving permission and eventually the club had its way. Why?
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Are you sure you never changed it? after all we all know about wickedpedia (wicked as you can make it say what you want)
Rationalizer
New Member
Why haven't the Sky Blue Trust replied to stop all of the theories appearing on this thread?
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
In what context does this argument fit against the present circumstance- This is yesterday's argument isn't it?
The rulings from the two JR hearings have delivered damning verdicts. The latter was quite concluding in its verdict and condemning of one of the parties in this sorry affair.
I'm sorry G but your continued denial of the data before you, in that you constantly preach an anti council /acl doctrine leads me to conclude you have an agenda perhaps?
Does the data not speak to you or are your eyes wide shut?
The Penguin
Well-Known Member
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
As a member of the trust why haven't you E-mailed them and asked them persoally if ou ave a problem with it?
And since you have a problem with the trust and them being in sisus pocket.
Why don't you stand for one of the Four positions being vacated by current trust directors.?
As you feel you and others on here feel you can can do a better job then the current board.
I am sure you will be eager to get the job done.
If you or anyone else wants to send me their details I would be happy to second you for any post you feel you are able to enhance..
I personally would not want the job if you paid me don't forget this job is volunteers only.
The only pay you will get is being accused of underhanded tactics being a liar,being in Sisus pocket,Not working on behalf of your members and all in your free time.
Good luck I hope you are successful in your new role.
And since you have a problem with the trust and them being in sisus pocket.
Why don't you stand for one of the Four positions being vacated by current trust directors.?
As you feel you and others on here feel you can can do a better job then the current board.
I am sure you will be eager to get the job done.
If you or anyone else wants to send me their details I would be happy to second you for any post you feel you are able to enhance..
I personally would not want the job if you paid me don't forget this job is volunteers only.
The only pay you will get is being accused of underhanded tactics being a liar,being in Sisus pocket,Not working on behalf of your members and all in your free time.
Good luck I hope you are successful in your new role.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Notions that trust board members are "in SISU's pockets" is ludicrous and grossly unfair in my opinion.
I'm sure that the trust board members are as frustrated as us all, but their ability to shape the outcome (as I am sure they would agree) is limited to 'influence' only through pressure applied via media, organised protests and the such like. If this renders them as "SISU PUPPETS" then that really is unfortunate.
Of course they are going to enter into dialogue if they can (and are invited?) to try to broker a deal, to express the frustrations felt by us all in an attempt to bring us home, I for one welcome it- "secretive" or confidential? as previously written there is a distinct difference, conspiracy theorist are driven to conclude the former by their very nature, but isn't that yet another unfortunate divisive thought process, in an already divided community.
Equally and as written by LAST- let those who think they can persuade these kamikaze owners of ours that they are on the wrong path, (a verdict concluded by consecutive appeal judges), to change their route step forward- all welcome.
* Edit- I have now joined the trust.
I'm sure that the trust board members are as frustrated as us all, but their ability to shape the outcome (as I am sure they would agree) is limited to 'influence' only through pressure applied via media, organised protests and the such like. If this renders them as "SISU PUPPETS" then that really is unfortunate.
Of course they are going to enter into dialogue if they can (and are invited?) to try to broker a deal, to express the frustrations felt by us all in an attempt to bring us home, I for one welcome it- "secretive" or confidential? as previously written there is a distinct difference, conspiracy theorist are driven to conclude the former by their very nature, but isn't that yet another unfortunate divisive thought process, in an already divided community.
Equally and as written by LAST- let those who think they can persuade these kamikaze owners of ours that they are on the wrong path, (a verdict concluded by consecutive appeal judges), to change their route step forward- all welcome.
* Edit- I have now joined the trust.
Last edited:
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
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
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/114-latest-news/415-election-to-trust-board
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Because it is a thankless job, you don't get paid, spend all your free time doing it, get accused of all sorts of things.
They don't come much thicker skinned then me but I wouldn't want it!!!
So yes now is the time to stand up and be counted.
Like I have said before I would be happy to second anyone and give them any support that I can.
Don't wait till the elections are over and then start complaining do it now
Closing Date 17 September you have plenty of time.
They don't come much thicker skinned then me but I wouldn't want it!!!
So yes now is the time to stand up and be counted.
Like I have said before I would be happy to second anyone and give them any support that I can.
Don't wait till the elections are over and then start complaining do it now
Closing Date 17 September you have plenty of time.
duffer
Well-Known Member
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.
Because that's what they all are "theories"
Nothing to report back as very little of interest said.
If you have concerns why not voice them at the monthly meetings?
Covstu
Well-Known Member
Spot on, you imagine every meeting of confidential nature gets broadcast over social media, we would never get home. I get the 'openness' stance but both parties would be that scared of saying something out of turn that nothing would be agreed. A good old 'off the record' meeting needs to be held so cards are firmly on the table and both parties know where each other sit in this farce.
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
100% agree Duffer.. 3rd time this week I've posted this.. but at the risk of data rather than opinion overload:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...isu-vs-7353831
1) A £14.4million loan from Coventry City Council to the Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL in January 2013 was not unlawful state aid.
2) The judge could not say a rational private investor would not have made a similar loan and the council acted “well within the ambit extended to public authorities”.
3) Sisu sought to blame the club’s financial woes on ACL, but the judge said the club sold their right to revenues at the Ricoh Arena “for good consideration”. He also pointed out that when Sisu bought the club they had “full knowledge” of the lack of revenue rights and the contractual commitment to pay ACL £1.3m-a-year in rent.
4) The club’s outgoings on rent were less than ten per cent of the club’s overall expenditure in 2012.
5) The judge said the crisis in ACL was triggered by Sisu refusing to pay rent. He also said £500,000 taken from an escrow and £10,000 costs paid per match was “expenses” and not rent.
6) The judge said the withdrawal of rent was a deliberate strategy by Sisu to “distress ACL’s financial position, with a view to driving down the value of ACL and thus the price of a share in it, which they coveted.”
7) Sisu criticised a £14.4m loan to ACL, which they argued was a failing business. But the judge responded by pointing out Sisu had ploughed £50m into a “hopelessly loss-making football club” in the hope they could make profit by buying into the Arena. He also said Sisu and its investors had “written off” this money.
8) The £14.4m loan made to ACL by the council was likely more than the value of the company - but this was acceptable as it was a long term investment which would see the council make a return.
9) The judge dismissed Sisu’s argument that the council had put policy above financial sense was “misconceived” - pointing out that the council was “entitled - if not bound” to consider politics in its decision-making process.
10) Criticisms of council officers which suggested they had misled councillors ahead of the decision to make the £14.4m loan to ACL were “unfounded”.
TheOldFive
New Member
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?
PorkyCovvy
Member
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.
PorkyCovvy
Member
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.
TheOldFive
New Member
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.
PorkyCovvy
Member
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
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Rob S
Well-Known Member
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?
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?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Do you go to Sixfields?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
I can only assume that Rob was committed to an NDA as he has not said a dicky bird about his meeting, apart from saying it happened, although he has never said that was the case, just referred to lack of time to do a report..... how many weeks/months ago was that??
Come on Rob, you've had plenty of time. Why not give us the Q&A's from those 6 hours with Joy?
- Status