Nick
Administrator
In fact they have done the opposite of condemn, they have praised it in the past and then to applaud them recently for it.
Again CJ this isn’t aimed at you personally, the trust as a whole have refused point blank to condemn wasps since they’ve been here.
You have a board member who openly applauds their actions then is in shock when we rock up at Birmingham. You know aswell as we all do that the conditions laid out by Wasps are ludicrous - so why isn’t the trust releasing statements to the media condemning these terms and making them public?
Again CJ this isn’t aimed at you personally, the trust as a whole have refused point blank to condemn wasps since they’ve been here.
You have a board member who openly applauds their actions then is in shock when we rock up at Birmingham. You know aswell as we all do that the conditions laid out by Wasps are ludicrous - so why isn’t the trust releasing statements to the media condemning these terms and making them public?
Sorry I miss understood. You replied to me saying “you’re”. It’s frustrating as if I say anything negative or someone from the board posts a tweet that is less than savoury (completely wrong to do so) or praises something Wasps have done people jump on me or them assuming that it’s a Trust view but when I or other board members say other things to do with CCC or Wasps like what I said the other night it’s not. What’s the difference?
It's wrong, he went weekly. He organises the bus from the Albany club.
I don't know whether he intends going to Brum but I'd imagine he isn't but he was a regular at 5he Ricoh.
As I said, you really shouldn't treat people as if they are silly. You knew full well what was meant by it as the post he quoted to reply to was you using "we" rather than "I".
The Trust view as it stands is to applaud Wasps and that one of their games was a fantastic sporting occasion while CCFC games were awful. Has anything been said since to the contrary?
I’m almost certain that there isn’t anyone from the board that have been to a Wasps match since they moved here 5 years ago. How can they any of us have an opinion on something we haven’t experienced.
Is Neil White on the board? He was giving an opinion the other day about how the wasps experience was better than our ownI didn’t but do now. Sorry. I’m almost certain that there isn’t anyone from the board that have been to a Wasps match since they moved here 5 years ago. How can any of us have an opinion on something we haven’t experienced.
Again CJ this isn’t aimed at you personally, the trust as a whole have refused point blank to condemn wasps since they’ve been here.
You have a board member who openly applauds their actions then is in shock when we rock up at Birmingham. You know aswell as we all do that the conditions laid out by Wasps are ludicrous - so why isn’t the trust releasing statements to the media condemning these terms and making them public?
If there is now nobody on the board who went, shouldn't the aims / views be updated from the Trust so people know they have changed?
What was said the other night?
Because the trust have never endorsed your view whereas they have the other.Again that’s what he did in a personal capacity as a non board member. In my personal capacity whilst I have been a board member I have criticised them. Why is one of those examples seen as a Trust view and one of them isn’t?
Again that’s what he did in a personal capacity as a non board member. In my personal capacity whilst I have been a board member I have criticised them. Why is one of those examples seen as a Trust view and one of them isn’t?
Was it not a Trust arranged thing where Wasps were applauded with a video on the Telegraph site of it happening? Didn't the Trust distance themselves from NW & BHSB's Wasps protest?
Again, you really shouldn't try to pretend people are stupid.
People are saying they want the Trust to start going at all sides (obviously including SISU), you coming on and posting that you personally dislike them doesn't change that. It doesn't make people think "Ah the Trust are really going to pressure them". All it does it look as if you are trying to get people to be quiet by saying nice things.
Talking of Trust views, after it took me a couple of days of hassling you to get something posted on the Trust social media account. Some of the retweets that I assume didn't need to be approved are quite entertaining too
Working, amazingly enough. To pay the bills to argue futilely with entrenched positions.Where’s NW? ...back behind his parapet ?
Or CJ is a prominent member of the trust. He is massively against Wasps, and had a whole thread of what to do against Wasps.Nick, i think it's you acting stupid here. CJ asked why anything another board member says is jumped upon, but anything he says is ignored. You're response? That CJ is trying to get people to be quiet. bloody hell. The lad can't win.
I assume the actual answer is that other comments fit your arguments, and his don't. Why not just admit that?
Nick, i think it's you acting stupid here. CJ asked why anything another board member says is jumped upon, but anything he says is ignored. You're response? That CJ is trying to get people to be quiet. bloody hell. The lad can't win.
I assume the actual answer is that other comments fit your arguments, and his don't. Why not just admit that?
The difference is that the Trust has never been seen to publicly pressure Wasps or the council. So when a board member posts their own views in line with the anti-SISU Trust stance it just reinforces the perception of the Trust as imbalanced and anti-SISU and that angers the people who no longer feel represented by the Trust.Sorry I miss understood. You replied to me saying “you’re”. It’s frustrating as if I say anything negative or someone from the board posts a tweet that is less than savoury (completely wrong to do so) or praises something Wasps have done people jump on me or them assuming that it’s a Trust view but when I or other board members say other things to do with CCC or Wasps like what I said the other night it’s not. What’s the difference?
Working, amazingly enough. To pay the bills to argue futilely with entrenched positions.
Because the trust have never endorsed your view whereas they have the other.
1) Applauding Wasps on a trust scheduled protest
2) making sure the trust had nothing to do with the wasps protest, and “misjudging” the season ticket fund
Or CJ is a prominent member of the trust. He is massively against Wasps, and had a whole thread of what to do against Wasps.
Not once have the trust taken his view on board - we want to know why this is?
Why are the trust so against criticism of Wasps and the council?
Everytime SISU do something the trust issue statements.
When all the emails, and wasps/council wrongdoings came out - they were silent. Why are the trust not now condemning this, why is CJs views being ignored?
The difference is that the Trust has never been seen to publicly pressure Wasps or the council. So when a board member posts their own views in line with the anti-SISU Trust stance it just reinforces the perception of the Trust as imbalanced and anti-SISU and that angers the people who no longer feel represented by the Trust.
If you as an individual then says something more balanced but the overarching direction or actions of the Trust don't change it is perceived as a token gesture just to try and appease a few people further angering the people who no longer feel represented by the Trust. It's a no win situation until the trust publicly sorts out it's aims.
* Acknowledge a disconnect from the fanbase in recent times
* Introduce the new board:
This is the new chairman, here's a bit about him
This is the new look board. Here's a bit about them
* Publish the updated trust aims and goals going forward with a high level plan how to achieve that.
(If that's a SISU Out at any cost protest group, or a shared blame approach to getting Cov back to the Ricoh, or to rebuild relationship with the club so that influence on the matchday experience can be exerted: then as long as it's openly stated and backed up by action, it's fine)
* Update the archaic membership criteria.
Reset the memberships in line with the new board Trust relaunch.
Give the membership a chance to re-sign up to the clearly stated aims on an autorenewed yearly quid membership allowing you to simultaneously get your GDPR requirements sorted while giving control of their support of the Trust back to the membership.
* Bring the Trust meetings into the 21st century by embracing technology so people can vote and attend meetings online.
Do this and I believe you will have a good chance of resetting public opinion and, depending on the stated aims, regaining and retaining the support of the wider fanbase.
If it does change anything, we're taking the credit btwI refer you back to the start of this thread... Nobody is excusing what went on before, but we now have a new guy on board as chairman, we had 4 people at the meeting with the same agenda ie to raise the issue of how many fans think the trust do not represent their views, and the 4 of us took up most of the meeting time making our points.
BHSB had a long list of grievances, which he raised (I think he was the first to mention the trust lack of support for MMJ's gofundme campaign) and was listened to throughout his long list. David E understood that there are issues, and the idea is we now wait to see if/how that changes their approach.
There is zero point in raising all the historical s*** now, but it seems that's all some people want to do. I do not expect that one meeting will suddenly change everything, and we will all be happy with the trust from now on, but it is a start at least. The big question is "will it change anything". Time will tell on that one.
So Is this going to manifest next time the media ask? Or in the next statement - are they publically going to ask why they want us to indemnify them if they’re found to be in the wrong?3) Trust board members have a pop at Wasps at the Trust AGM.
So you can't see why a board member writing a statement saying he is done with the club and that Robins should keep his nose out is relevant to being on the Trust board? Can you also not see why when somebody says "The Trust needs to come out and have this stance" that CJ saying "I hate Wasps" doesn't really do that and it's just to tickle a couple of bellies and say what people want to hear?
As has been pointed out for months / years, CJ ends up being thrown under the bus being the only one who tries to engage and 90% of that is saying things that people want to hear because no matter what the poor bloke tries to pass on, nothing gets anywhere.
It was mentioned the other day, the Trust need to stop trying to pretend people are stupid and will just believe anything.
First paragraph I don’t agree with, if you’re the supporters trust - you should be a supporter. Not someone who’s skipped out on the clubs lowest edge. And the Robins comment should be enough to dissociate himself with the trust.David J saying he is "done with the club". Fair enough, that's his view. Does that detract from him trying to effect change so he can re-engage with the club? To still put effort in to trying to get the sky blues back to Coventry? I can understand that, however, I can't defend him on his "Robins" comment.
I think it's quite insulting to CJ to suggest he only says things because it what people want to hear. Have you not considered he may say it because he means it? The fact it "doesn't get anywhere" is the real issue, so lets see what happens in the future, see if the trust react to the comments made.
3) Trust board members have a pop at Wasps at the Trust AGM.
David J saying he is "done with the club". Fair enough, that's his view. Does that detract from him trying to effect change so he can re-engage with the club? To still put effort in to trying to get the sky blues back to Coventry? I can understand that, however, I can't defend him on his "Robins" comment.
I think it's quite insulting to CJ to suggest he only says things because it what people want to hear. Have you not considered he may say it because he means it? The fact it "doesn't get anywhere" is the real issue, so lets see what happens in the future, see if the trust react to the comments made.
David J saying he is "done with the club". Fair enough, that's his view. Does that detract from him trying to effect change so he can re-engage with the club? To still put effort in to trying to get the sky blues back to Coventry? I can understand that, however, I can't defend him on his "Robins" comment.
I think it's quite insulting to CJ to suggest he only says things because it what people want to hear. Have you not considered he may say it because he means it? The fact it "doesn't get anywhere" is the real issue, so lets see what happens in the future, see if the trust react to the comments made.
I think it's more insulting that it's thought that people are stupid. CJ saying he doesn't like Wasps when somebody says the Trust should speak out about them isn't an answer.
No, it's not. You are basically calling CJ a liar.
His point still stands, you pick up on anything a trust member says that suits your argument, but CJ voicing criticism of Wasps is ignored, or, considered a lie ("saying what people want to hear")
The fact that the overall trust board are not reflecting his views, or at least stating that his view is equally as valid as "SISU out" is a problem that needs to be resolved.
I would have more belief in Johnson if he deleted that Jimmy Hill Way tripe off Twitter
If they didn’t reflect my views I’d just leave and make as much noise about leaving as I could
That last paragraph is precisely nicks point - if he has that view then why isn’t it being looked at?No, it's not. You are basically calling CJ a liar.
His point still stands, you pick up on anything a trust member says that suits your argument, but CJ voicing criticism of Wasps is ignored, or, considered a lie ("saying what people want to hear")
The fact that the overall trust board are not reflecting his views, or at least stating that his view is equally as valid as "SISU out" is a problem that needs to be resolved.
No, it's not. You are basically calling CJ a liar.
His point still stands, you pick up on anything a trust member says that suits your argument, but CJ voicing criticism of Wasps is ignored, or, considered a lie ("saying what people want to hear")
The fact that the overall trust board are not reflecting his views, or at least stating that his view is equally as valid as "SISU out" is a problem that needs to be resolved.
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?