Sorry to revert to the original point of this thread. My recollections on the more interesting points, further to Michael's comments are detailed below. I hope these are objective and amplify the issues noted by Michael.
Resolution 1: After discussion particularly centring on whether the Trust would want to block rich owners if they didn't consent to meaningful supporter representation, general assent was given to this proposal, with the minor amendment to encompass current as well as potential future owners. Passed.
Resolution 2: deferred to a future meeting (October 2014) by Bruce Walker (proposer) after consultation with Trust Board members in view of on-going developments, particularly the outcome of discussions at the Football League on 7th August, which could be impaired by passing the motion at this time. Discussions moved into 'Open Forum' section of meeting, some reservations about 'call for complete boycott' otherwise no obvious dissenting voices and Bruce put forward good arguments in support of the Resolution. A suggestion to sub-divide the Resolution, so the 4 key elements could be considered individually, seemed to meet with general approval.
Question for Trust Board from David Johnson (Lamtara 2006): "In the event that there is no return by Coventry City to the Ricoh by the start of the 2014-15 season and assuming that Sisu maintain their usual intransigent approach, will the Trust Board re-consider its policy of engagement with Sisu / Otium in a reasonable manner and adopt more openly, actively critical methods?"
Answer from Steve Brown (Chair) "Yes". Board also to review it's attitude/approach at each monthly Board Meeting.
Further suggestions from DJ for action (assuming no substantial progress before then): at Bradford 'Fix Football' signs for 35th minute + 'We want to go home'; Cardiff at Sixfields: get large numbers on the Hill, possible joint protest with Cardiff Supporters Trust (against Vincent Tan), make enough noise with anything but whistles to drown out TV commentary.
Would Sky Blues Fans who go into Sixfields join in 'Fix Football' signs protest along with Cardiff fans + those on the Hill? [Constructive comments welcome please.]
Meeting including Board seemed generally to approve these ideas. SB commented that he felt it important to get a good turnout on the Hill for the Cardiff game, as long as Board members don't have to do all the work. Suggestion from the Board to run transport to the Hill if sufficient demand, Trust coach going to Bradford still has seats available (contact Gary Stubbs).
Michael Orton congratulated and thanked Board for work done, particularly those who organised the March (round of applause). Referred to excellent speeches by former players and noted that CCFPA had taken vote on stance towards Sixfields, decided that they won't go. Questioned why, if CCFPA can take a vote, Trust Board couldn't do the same re Resolution 2. Then asked why, if Resolution 2 could not be voted on, the meeting was willing to consider 'more aggressive' proposals from David Johnson to commence within 2 days of FL meeting on 07/08 if no return to Ricoh.
Roger Ellis (Secretary) responded on behalf of Board. (My memory is hazy here but essentially stated that the Open Forum discussions are helpful, non-binding and allow flexibility in a developing situation.)
DJ responded that his proposals not only require that there is no clear resolution on return to Ricoh, also that CCFC owners/directors maintain usual intransigent position. As Bradford action would be in support of 'Fix Football' petition started by MO which should benefit the whole of football, not just Coventry City, it can hardly be described as 'aggressive'. [Not sure whether MO was objecting to the proposals for action at Bradford and Cardiff games or just expressing disappointment that Resolution 2 had not moved to a vote.]
The argument re the 'secret meeting' was a point raised by Lionel Bird complaining that he and some other Board Members had not been informed in advance of a meeting attended by SB, RE (& one other?) with Seppala (and Fisher?) which he felt to be disrespectful. LB has resigned from Trust Board. SB stated that he felt he was doing the right thing at the time and still believed it was the right course of action, considering that Trust has repeatedly attempted to engage in constructive dialogue. RE pointed out that a detailed memorandum of that meeting was circulated to Board Members on the same day. LB demanded that the Board adopt a protocol to be adhered to in future to maintain proper transparency, SB committed that it would be discussed at the next Board Meeting.
