Sky Blues Trust AGM (23 Viewers)

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jul 20, 2021

shmmeee said:
That’s not true is it. I know you’ve got this grudge against them, but seriously? To claim fans don’t need representation on the future of their clubs? Couldn’t disagree more.

I don’t mind an elected board member to sit on the meetings. But unless they put money in their influence should be minimal. Ive bought every Playstation, don’t see me demanding representation on Sony’s board trying to change their operating methods

i have a grudge because of the shitty underhanded crap they’ve pulled
- indemnity clause denial
- David Johnson “a Phoenix club can play at the Ricoh”
- Preston Haskell - forcing us into administration so they can force a takeover
- applauding the council and wasps - the very same people who refused to deal with us

need I go on?

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

shmmeee said:
That’s not true is it. I know you’ve got this grudge against them, but seriously? To claim fans don’t need representation on the future of their clubs? Couldn’t disagree more.

That’s where I am too. I’d love a group of fans having veto rights on moving away from the city and on the badge and kit maybe. On budget mmmmmm. I just can’t see owners agreeing to fans having a veto on some of these aspects. I can see owners working more closely with fans so it doesn’t come to that.
For me it’s how it’s done to ensure maximum cover of supporters opinions using the 80:20 rule probably

I don’t see the trust able to fulfil those roles the fsa envisages. Maybe with some fresh input and some fresh perspectives and a real reaching out to become that group maybe,

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

rob9872 said:
I'm a member of Leam & Warwicks supporters, Nuneaton & Bedworth Supporters, Sky Blue Trust and this forum. Do I get 4 votes?

Seriously though, there are some good people in all walks but also many power hungry ones each having their own agenda. I don't trust the Trust, but I see it that each want their own to be the number one. I've even seen it with the supporters groups complaining that one is treated more fairly or not than the another when the Coventry one was restarting. To a lesser extent and forgive me Pete, even here pushing that the supporters forum should be the one as that's the one that he sits on.

Everyone has an opinion on right and wrong and the only fair way (imo) is just like a Working Men's Club is responsible to it's members who pay the annual fee to be part of it, then our acid test of those who invest their money and should be the ones who have a say and each season, particularly recently with Geography or being in a lower league, those numbers have been less than we'd like, so the landscape may change but they are the ones most affected by any potential changes and that's season ticket holders. One season ticket, one vote.

Season ticket should be a pre requisite really. I only think the supporters forum as that has representatives from all or most of the groups. Maybe it needs to step up and be a governing body. The trust has those responsibilities currently as per the FSA and possibly through legislation if the ministers agree

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jul 20, 2021

Sky Blue Pete said:
That’s where I am too. I’d love a group of fans having veto rights on moving away from the city and on the badge and kit maybe. On budget mmmmmm. I just can’t see owners agreeing to fans having a veto on some of these aspects. I can see owners working more closely with fans so it doesn’t come to that.
For me it’s how it’s done to ensure maximum cover of supporters opinions using the 80:20 rule probably

I don’t see the trust able to fulfil those roles the fsa envisages. Maybe with some fresh input and some fresh perspectives and a real reaching out to become that group maybe,

Maybe in certain aspects I.e groundshare, badge, kit etc you canvass ST Support which as you’ve said may require 80/20 amongst ST holders to wield 1 vote, club has 1 vote and an independent regulator has a casting vote?

if the club can’t act freely to an extent, the club loses a bit of bargaining power

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
Maybe in certain aspects I.e groundshare, badge, kit etc you canvass ST Support which as you’ve said may require 80/20 amongst ST holders to wield 1 vote, club has 1 vote and an independent regulator has a casting vote?

if the club can’t act freely to an extent, the club loses a bit of bargaining power

People far cleverer than me are working on ways to reform football. Could be an interesting few years. Mark and I have been musing and mark again has a bigger brain than me about having a supporter director. It’s not really been grabbed and run with. And as shmmee said would need to be democratic etc

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jul 20, 2021

Sky Blue Pete said:
People far cleverer than me are working on ways to reform football. Could be an interesting few years. Mark and I have been musing and mark again has a bigger brain than me having a supporter director. It’s not really been grabbed and run with. And as shmmee said would need to be democratic etc

I don’t see how canvassing Season ticket holders isn’t democratic? It’s far more fairer than letting the trust run riot.

you take your core fanbase directly, and ask them. It gives them equal voting power with the club and ultimately you give a regulator armed with all the facts the deciding vote

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jul 20, 2021

some members of the trust board openly say they don’t go to the games - why should they have anymore say than the season ticket holders

rob9872 · Jul 20, 2021

No to a supporter director. They'd still hold meetings without you and only let you hear what they wanted, so rendering it pointless (and I don't blame them tbh I would if it was my business). Equally the supporter who goes with all good intentions, will suddenly be in the camp, I can't say this that or the other and almost become part of that closed shop. It's not personal but inevitable. A panel is the way to go as we have it, but to be on that panel you should minimum be a season ticket holder.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 20, 2021

HuckerbyDublinWhelan said:
some members of the trust board openly say they don’t go to the games - why should they have anymore say than the season ticket holders

That can be resolved though. ST Holders join the Trust, elect themselves into the board positions.

As an aside, limiting to solely ST Holders is dangerous, as sometimes (not always) the people (not all) who hold season tickets are rather unquestioning - it doesn't allow for challenge. It's the fatal mistake businesses make when they only canvass the view of the people utilising said business or service - the business can shrink, less people go, but those that go say it's great so you keep doing whatever you're doing to make the business shrink, ignoring those who used to go, but don't anymore, or those who might be disposed to go.

There is a happy medium where you neither get slavish adherance to club view, nor criticism for the sake of criticism. I appreciate finding that medium is easier said than done.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

rob9872 said:
No to a supporter director. They'd still hold meetings without you and only let you hear what they wanted, so rendering it pointless (and I don't blame them tbh I would if it was my business). Equally the supporter who goes with all good intentions, will suddenly be in the camp, I can't say this that or the other and almost become part of that closed shop. It's not personal but inevitable. A panel is the way to go as we have it, but to be on that panel you should minimum be a season ticket holder.

Ultimately someone needs to decide. As shmmeee says the trust regulations make it the appropriate vehicle. Past experience and the need for other voices to represent the fan base and to progress other matters has meant they have less relevance. Like I say a lot of the work done in the last year by various members of the board is really excellent on our behalf

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

Deleted member 5849 said:
That can be resolved though. ST Holders join the Trust, elect themselves into the board positions.

As an aside, limiting to solely ST Holders is dangerous, as sometimes (not always) the people (not all) who hold season tickets are rather unquestioning - it doesn't allow for challenge. It's the fatal mistake businesses make when they only canvass the view of the people utilising said business or service - the business can shrink, less people go, but those that go say it's great so you keep doing whatever you're doing to make the business shrink, ignoring those who used to go, but don't anymore, or those who might be disposed to go.

There is a happy medium where you neither get slavish adherance to club view, nor criticism for the sake of criticism. I appreciate finding that medium is easier said than done.

And we each see it differently too although there’s quite an agreement over most of the important stuff

rob9872 · Jul 20, 2021

Kind of agree with some of that tbf and you're right about a shrinking business, but it should still be imo part of the trust that a board member has to be a season ticket holder or relinquish their position . I'd rather have an apathetic fan representing me than someone dictating to me what I want that doesn't even go.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 20, 2021

rob9872 said:
Kind of agree with some of that tbf and you're right about a shrinking business, but it should still be imo part of the trust that a board member has to be a season ticket holder or relinquish their position . I'd rather have an apathetic fan representing me than someone dictating to me what I want that doesn't even go.

I think there's space for both, it shouldn't automatically stop you from being on the board if you don't hold a season ticket. Think back to Northampton for example, and it would have been a rather limited pool of people available, if so, and we'd have had RFC running the show

That being said, I personally wouldn't put myself forward for the board as I don't have a season ticket, and I think it would affect my credibility. Maybe... that gives me the self awareness they actually need, in a circular irony

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jul 20, 2021

Deleted member 5849 said:
That can be resolved though. ST Holders join the Trust, elect themselves into the board positions.

As an aside, limiting to solely ST Holders is dangerous, as sometimes (not always) the people (not all) who hold season tickets are rather unquestioning - it doesn't allow for challenge. It's the fatal mistake businesses make when they only canvass the view of the people utilising said business or service - the business can shrink, less people go, but those that go say it's great so you keep doing whatever you're doing to make the business shrink, ignoring those who used to go, but don't anymore, or those who might be disposed to go.

There is a happy medium where you neither get slavish adherance to club view, nor criticism for the sake of criticism. I appreciate finding that medium is easier said than done.

But see that’s the issue. The trust represents a smaller amount of people who represent their members not Coventry city supporters (their words)

the only group that has the fans views at heart is the season ticket holders. They put the most time, money and effort into the club. Forcing them to join an organisation that’s historically put themselves above the club is suicidal, and also putting someone who hasnt been in 3/4 years an equal say is alienating.

ultimately that’s the reason for the independent panel. They look at the facts on merit they have the casting vote if needed

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 20, 2021

On a personal level (talk about what you know!), last season I probably ended up spending more than Season Ticket holders, as I ended up watching most games - but didn't buy a season ticket as much because it looked like they were going to let people into grounds earlier in the season, and I wasn't ready for that - and iFollow was set to stop if they did that. Would it, therefore, be fair to allow me a lack of representation over that point, because I didn't hold a season ticket? It was the club's actions that ultimately stopped me getting a season ticket (I feel the need to step in with countless caveats here, I'm saying in a matter of fact way - the statement is true, no matter where the origins for the decisions made, sky, FL, club etc are. Now it's for the club to obtain that information and decide whether it's worth acting on. If they don't get that information, they *certainly* don't adapt), but to disenfranchise me as well would be madness!

rob9872 · Jul 20, 2021

Deleted member 5849 said:
On a personal level (talk about what you know!), last season I probably ended up spending more than Season Ticket holders, as I ended up watching most games - but didn't buy a season ticket as much because it looked like they were going to let people into grounds earlier in the season, and I wasn't ready for that - and iFollow was set to stop if they did that. Would it, therefore, be fair to allow me a lack of representation over that point, because I didn't hold a season ticket? It was the club's actions that ultimately stopped me getting a season ticket (I feel the need to step in with countless caveats here, I'm saying in a matter of fact way - the statement is true, no matter where the origins for the decisions made, sky, FL, club etc are. Now it's for the club to obtain that information and decide whether it's worth acting on. If they don't get that information, they *certainly* don't adapt), but to disenfranchise me as well would be madness!

In fairness though, you're level headed enough to accept that you're the exception rather than the rule and the majority of those who do hold the club dearly would have bought. Ask yourself if you went to the local social club every Saturday night and signed in as a guest paying your 50p, you would have spent more than an annual membership but still have no say in how the club was ran and I don't think you'd expect to either. It's a bit of a leap I realise, but the best representation I can think of.

Fwiw I think ifollow would have continued even if grounds could open as I would have gone back but not my dad who was more vulnerable and we understood it to be ok that we had that option for home games. That's why we bought 3 tickets when we could have watched together with 1 ifollow pass.

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 20, 2021

rob9872 said:
In fairness though, you're level headed enough to accept that you're the exception rather than the rule and the majority of those who do hold the club dearly would have bought. Ask yourself if you went to the local social club every Saturday night and signed in as a guest paying your 50p, you would have spent more than an annual membership but still have no say in how the club was ran and I don't think you'd expect to either. It's a bit of a leap I realise, but the best representation I can think of.

Fwiw I think ifollow would have continued even if grounds could open as I would have gone back but not my dad who was more vulnerable and we understood it to be ok that we had that option for home games. That's why we bought 3 tickets when we could have watched together with 1 ifollow pass.

Pretty sure they expressly said in the initial terms, it was home streaming for as long as you couldn't go in?

Anyway, we don't know if I am the exception or not if we don't canvass all views. The natural progression, then, is to assume I'm the exception, because it fits the narrative of a collective who are exclusively the season ticket holders!

If, however, you canvass all views, you find whether I am the exception or not. We might assume I am but, if you don't even try to test it, you're probably doing a poor job in researching your customer base. Even if I am the exception, you need to know because you'll have your gantt chart or whatever, and if there are some easy wins that keep or attract more, with little effort, you need to be sticking them in!

HuckerbyDublinWhelan · Jul 20, 2021

Deleted member 5849 said:
On a personal level (talk about what you know!), last season I probably ended up spending more than Season Ticket holders, as I ended up watching most games - but didn't buy a season ticket as much because it looked like they were going to let people into grounds earlier in the season, and I wasn't ready for that - and iFollow was set to stop if they did that. Would it, therefore, be fair to allow me a lack of representation over that point, because I didn't hold a season ticket? It was the club's actions that ultimately stopped me getting a season ticket (I feel the need to step in with countless caveats here, I'm saying in a matter of fact way - the statement is true, no matter where the origins for the decisions made, sky, FL, club etc are. Now it's for the club to obtain that information and decide whether it's worth acting on. If they don't get that information, they *certainly* don't adapt), but to disenfranchise me as well would be madness!

Which is fine. The season ticket holders are the consistent investment that can be traced, maybe put in place a club membership scheme? You get it free with the season tickets - and for an annual fee of say £150 you get discounted tickets, secondary benefits in terms of away days and equal voting rights. Maybe throw in Ifollow

there has to be an up to date proven investment in the club, you can’t have people saying “I don’t go” then saying “my view should count the same as those who put the money, time and effort”

AndreasB · Jul 20, 2021

I suggest anyone interested has a look at the "Meet the Board" section of the Trust website. The first names are the the usual suspects SISU OUTERS (Brown, Eyles, Walker) still wanging on about the need to Get The Club Back to Coventry (!)
But then the last few names are new to me and most others I suspect- professional LinkedIn style bios and pictures. Its all a bit odd as they seem to have all joined at the same time and all seem to have a similar background in "sports marketing" Would be interested to know a bit more about them, who voted for them and what their motivation is.

SBT · Jul 20, 2021

shmmeee said:
Who decides what’s a supporter group and who represents them?

Who controls the meeting schedule/agenda?

READ THE STANDING ORDERS

READ THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM

oakey · Jul 20, 2021

rob9872 said:
I'm a member of Leam & Warwicks supporters, Nuneaton & Bedworth Supporters, Sky Blue Trust and this forum. Do I get 4 votes?

Seriously though, there are some good people in all walks but also many power hungry ones each having their own agenda. I don't trust the Trust, but I see it that each want their own to be the number one. I've even seen it with the supporters groups complaining that one is treated more fairly or not than the another when the Coventry one was restarting. To a lesser extent and forgive me Pete, even here pushing that the supporters forum should be the one as that's the one that he sits on.

Everyone has an opinion on right and wrong and the only fair way (imo) is just like a Working Men's Club is responsible to it's members who pay the annual fee to be part of it, then our acid test of those who invest their money and should be the ones who have a say and each season, particularly recently with Geography or being in a lower league, those numbers have been less than we'd like, so the landscape may change but they are the ones most affected by any potential changes and that's season ticket holders. One season ticket, one vote.

Precisely. Season ticket holders should have proper representation. I'm wondering if supporters clubs in 'insert location' should have all the goodies like 'An evening with MR' and visits from players when those who live a distance or are not club joiners can be mostly ignored.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

AndreasB said:
I suggest anyone interested has a look at the "Meet the Board" section of the Trust website. The first names are the the usual suspects SISU OUTERS (Brown, Eyles, Walker) still wanging on about the need to Get The Club Back to Coventry (!)
But then the last few names are new to me and most others I suspect- professional LinkedIn style bios and pictures. Its all a bit odd as they seem to have all joined at the same time and all seem to have a similar background in "sports marketing" Would be interested to know a bit more about them, who voted for them and what their motivation is.

The comms man seems genuine and the fsa lady too. Lots of work they’ve done and they do it because they support ccfc and want to see them successful.

AndreasB said:
I suggest anyone interested has a look at the "Meet the Board" section of the Trust website. The first names are the the usual suspects SISU OUTERS (Brown, Eyles, Walker) still wanging on about the need to Get The Club Back to Coventry (!)
But then the last few names are new to me and most others I suspect- professional LinkedIn style bios and pictures. Its all a bit odd as they seem to have all joined at the same time and all seem to have a similar background in "sports marketing" Would be interested to know a bit more about them, who voted for them and what their motivation is.

The fsa lady - Grace is impressive as is the work she’s been doing not least the city of culture stuff
The comms strategy is sound - luke Harris is working on this. Nothing to disagree with in what he said or wants to do

Bruce is wanting to stand down - he had a pop at supporters forum for not replying about city of culture stuff - fair point really. And part of what I was saying about how hard it’s going to be to unite the supporters groups. I offered to sit and decide actions on behalf of us. So watch this space

Dave is standing down as chair after this year. He spoke about maybe this would help progress the unity if he wasn’t chair.

There were spaces on the board if anyone is interested. I am thinking how I can do more to unite the fan base. I felt that being on the trust board was not right but I do think it’s right to attend and ask questions and make points.
They desperately need help on IT and website expertise so if anyone can help them email

Skybluetrust@email.com

The 4 pronged strategy on comms is

Regular communication
Minimum monthly communications
Email to come back to skybluetrust@email.com
Next key focus - change platform - up to speed
Interactions and engagement - working closely with our partners. Multiple opportunities to increase our visibility and credibility
Reconnect with next generation of supporters

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 20, 2021

AndreasB said:
I suggest anyone interested has a look at the "Meet the Board" section of the Trust website. The first names are the the usual suspects SISU OUTERS (Brown, Eyles, Walker) still wanging on about the need to Get The Club Back to Coventry (!)
But then the last few names are new to me and most others I suspect- professional LinkedIn style bios and pictures. Its all a bit odd as they seem to have all joined at the same time and all seem to have a similar background in "sports marketing" Would be interested to know a bit more about them, who voted for them and what their motivation is.

They were advertising for new board members a while back weren’t they?

RegTheDonk · Jul 20, 2021

Frostie said:
Thanks Pete.

re: e-mailing members, there must be plenty on here that are in that alleged 2,800 - can anybody confirm they are a member & received it? And that they expressly stated they are happy to receive invitation by email?

Work ongoing on website is a joke - it's actually gotten worse.

Sorry, but while same faces remain you're not going to convince many that anything will change.

I had emails as a normal member telling me about it and giving a link and a password to the meeting. Took a brief look but couldn't get any sound. I've mailed them a couple of times in the past when they were asking for feedback from the members on how to move forward but never even got a reply. An AGM may be a constitutional requirement but you just get the feeling what's the point.

RegTheDonk · Jul 20, 2021

Frostie said:
Also, constitution states membership should be reviewed & renewed on an annual basis with an annual fee.
Apart from handing over £1 in the pub or outside the Ricoh decades ago, has anybody ever been asked to renew?

No never been asked to renew. I'll presume the logic there is they would only get a fraction of people bother so hardly could tout themselves as the voice of the supporters.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

RegTheDonk said:
I had emails as a normal member telling me about it and giving a link and a password to the meeting. Took a brief look but couldn't get any sound. I've mailed them a couple of times in the past when they were asking for feedback from the members on how to move forward but never even got a reply. An AGM may be a constitutional requirement but you just get the feeling what's the point.

Like shmmee says the decisions are made by those in the room. Don’t disagree about the format but it was interesting though hearing about the work Grace has been doing

Greggs · Jul 20, 2021

Easy - Joe Elliott, John Dalziel, Andy Turner, one of the Mad Matters and someone voted from here. I'd trust that dream team.

Frostie · Jul 20, 2021

RegTheDonk said:
No never been asked to renew. I'll presume the logic there is they would only get a fraction of people bother so hardly could tout themselves as the voice of the supporters.

Exactly. So breaking their own constitution.

They have no will to actually represent their "members".

Deleted member 5849 · Jul 20, 2021

Frostie said:
Exactly. So breaking their own constitution.

They have no will to actually represent their "members".

Well... there's a contradiction as when Northampton happened, they offered £1 for life membership, I think.

The problem with that being, it means no funds incoming, either...

SlowerThanPlatt · Jul 20, 2021

Greggs said:
Easy - Joe Elliott, John Dalziel, Andy Turner, one of the Mad Matters and someone voted from here. I'd trust that dream team.

No room for Mr Sky Blue himself, Richard Keys?

Frostie · Jul 20, 2021

Sky Blue Pete said:
The comms man seems genuine and the fsa lady too. Lots of work they’ve done and they do it because they support ccfc and want to see them successful.

The fsa lady - Grace is impressive as is the work she’s been doing not least the city of culture stuff
The comms strategy is sound - luke Harris is working on this. Nothing to disagree with in what he said or wants to do

Bruce is wanting to stand down - he had a pop at supporters forum for not replying about city of culture stuff - fair point really. And part of what I was saying about how hard it’s going to be to unite the supporters groups. I offered to sit and decide actions on behalf of us. So watch this space

Dave is standing down as chair after this year. He spoke about maybe this would help progress the unity if he wasn’t chair.

There were spaces on the board if anyone is interested. I am thinking how I can do more to unite the fan base. I felt that being on the trust board was not right but I do think it’s right to attend and ask questions and make points.
They desperately need help on IT and website expertise so if anyone can help them email

Skybluetrust@email.com

The 4 pronged strategy on comms is

Regular communication
Minimum monthly communications
Email to come back to skybluetrust@email.com
Next key focus - change platform - up to speed
Interactions and engagement - working closely with our partners. Multiple opportunities to increase our visibility and credibility
Reconnect with next generation of supporters

Rinse & repeat every 12 months.
What have they actually done in the last year?
Where are the results for the survey they conducted last November?

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

Frostie said:
Rinse & repeat every 12 months.
What have they actually done in the last year?
Where are the results for the survey they conducted last November?

Think it’s been used for informing the conversation with fsa and the evidence given to the mp. Don’t get me wrong I’m not making excuses for them.
Like most of us we have full time jobs and limited time to do what we want to do. I’m not surprised people are frustrated having tried before but something needs to change if anything does come out of Parliament to radically change how football is run

shmmeee · Jul 20, 2021

Sky Blue Pete said:
That’s where I am too. I’d love a group of fans having veto rights on moving away from the city and on the badge and kit maybe. On budget mmmmmm. I just can’t see owners agreeing to fans having a veto on some of these aspects. I can see owners working more closely with fans so it doesn’t come to that.
For me it’s how it’s done to ensure maximum cover of supporters opinions using the 80:20 rule probably

I don’t see the trust able to fulfil those roles the fsa envisages. Maybe with some fresh input and some fresh perspectives and a real reaching out to become that group maybe,

No, budget is insane. But the culture of the club the colours, the name, the badge, where they play arguably (though that’s a bit trickier) IMO belong more to the fans than the owners.

Nick · Jul 20, 2021

Sky Blue Pete said:
What’s he got to do with ccfc Nick?

You said Sky Blue Trust.

Sky Blue Pete · Jul 20, 2021

shmmeee said:
No, budget is insane. But the culture of the club the colours, the name, the badge, where they play arguably (though that’s a bit trickier) IMO belong more to the fans than the owners.

Certainly to the fan bloc, the community, the history, owners come and go you and me and our dads and grandads and kids and their kids have far more invested than just millions of pounds

Sky Blues Trust AGM (23 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency