Trust Meeting (1 Viewer)

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
Alright, so there were c.25 of us there. It beat the Wasps 'protest' attendance but... only just! Many (Most? All?) were the board, and/or friends of the board!

Four of us were there from that protest including Moz, the outgoing chair. We (not Moz! He removed himself elegantly without giving an opinion all night!) fed back that the perception was the Trust were keen to condemn SISU and not challenge other parties and it was taken on board by the incoming chair. We'll wait and see if it is or not. They are going to have a serious look at their communication, and so they should. Note, this doesn't mean they should stop condemning SISU by any means!

But I have to ask, where were you all? I get that some are in the US or Bristol, so I get there are reasons for some, but I don't want the bleating about how you have to travel to a meeting to get your point across. This was your chance! Instead of sitting around on here complaining, why leave it to me and a small number of others to give feedback? How does that help give perception of a groundswell desiring change? Frankly, it's pathetic - there are one or two on this messageboard in particular who should be ashamed, they give it large but turn up for absolutely nothing and offer nothing when it comes to it (we'll see who justifies themselves on that, and I'll snigger when it's people I didn't mean). How about emailing feedback to CJ on [email protected] (I have his permission to share that!) if you can't make it? Silence equates to apathy or consent.

Instead, four of us there to make a point. It should be noted I'll knock the board out in terms of feedback so, four was a reasonable proportion of the audience(!) but think about how much better that could have been if there had been more. Just like the protest, all we're signifying is apathy, and a greater desire to watch Coronation Street than give an opinion. That opinion doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) personal, but it can be about process.

So that's that bit out the way, the rest are random personal observations.

I will say it strikes me as the Trust board is somewhat battered, and hunkering down. I will say that they have met, as a board, most of the parties involved in this dispute, and challenged them. What they haven't done is told us that! Frankly, their communication is shocking, and that's half the problem.

I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.

The emphasis throughout the meeting from the board was the primary aim was to see Coventry City playing back in Coventry. That's something we can all get behind as it's blindingly obvious! There were also a number of anti-Wasps sentiments, but an assertion that their position needs to be understood. I can buy into that as a philosophy tbh - part of the reason we end up with a disconnect is the lack of willingness to understand various parties. Understand does not equal acceptance.

We'll see. It needs the board as a whole to move, and it needs more than words, but I can believe a couple of them are certainly sincere in that they recognise a fanbase needs to be reunited, and that they need to take on board views outside of a bubble.

Thing is though, if that bubble's all they have...
 

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
You had to ask where everyone was? The Trust has made themselves a complete dinosaur that doesn’t, and has never, represented the fan base.

You can whine all you want about apathy, but the Trust made their bed, now they’re seemingly laying in it.
 
Last edited:

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.

The guy who said he was done with CCFC? I assume he was there for attention seeking purposes.

Maybe... this kind of thing is why the fans won't engage.. seen as a bit of a boys ego massaging exercise.

Fair play for taking the time to go and having your voice heard.
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
From my perspective (and to be fair I wouldn’t have been able to go anyway, Monday night meetings are incompatible with my working hours) I didn’t even know it was happening.

Let’s say there is likely to be regular attendees at meetings in the future (i.e. one or two from this board each time) would it be worth creating a sticky thread with a title of the next meeting date and any questions/concerns that members on here have which can then be relayed at the meeting? Though the downside of that is people may feel it is further enabling of their decision not to attend.
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Umm, can only apologise. I didn't know it was on. I saw the Trust thread, but just assumed it was moaning about the Trust, so I avoided it. Definitely would have gone if I had known.

Maybe next time we can have a dedicated thread for Trust meetings. I would have picked up on it straight away then.
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
From my perspective (and to be fair I wouldn’t have been able to go anyway, Monday night meetings are incompatible with my working hours) I didn’t even know it was happening.

Let’s say there is likely to be regular attendees at meetings in the future (i.e. one or two from this board each time) would it be worth creating a sticky thread with a title of the next meeting date and any questions/concerns that members on here have which can then be relayed at the meeting? Though the downside of that is people may feel it is further enabling of their decision not to attend.
Yeah, tbf I'd always go to give my own view.

FWIW (I know who they are too!) I wouldn't want to give oxygen to shouty people on a message board who'd then expect me to be shot as the messenger.
 

vow

Well-Known Member
I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.
The same c**t that told MR to "stay in his lane" and "don't be a mouthpiece for SISU/Fisher/Seppala" (delete as appropriate)?

That certainly wasn't balanced was it now? The further away he is from Coventry City or anything that represents a Fan Group the better.

Don't ever fuck with the playing staff/manager etc. either support or do one.
 

Gray

Well-Known Member
I went to the first couple of meetings when it first reformed, but it came apparent straight away that it was really Cliquey. Anyone from out the group of mates opinion was ignored, so we didn't go back
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
They’re so far away from what I think a functioning trust is I wouldn’t want to be involved. You’re just as likely to see me turn up for a Conservative party hustings.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Alright, so there were c.25 of us there. It beat the Wasps 'protest' attendance but... only just! Many (Most? All?) were the board, and/or friends of the board!

Four of us were there from that protest including Moz, the outgoing chair. We (not Moz! He removed himself elegantly without giving an opinion all night!) fed back that the perception was the Trust were keen to condemn SISU and not challenge other parties and it was taken on board by the incoming chair. We'll wait and see if it is or not. They are going to have a serious look at their communication, and so they should. Note, this doesn't mean they should stop condemning SISU by any means!

But I have to ask, where were you all? I get that some are in the US or Bristol, so I get there are reasons for some, but I don't want the bleating about how you have to travel to a meeting to get your point across. This was your chance! Instead of sitting around on here complaining, why leave it to me and a small number of others to give feedback? How does that help give perception of a groundswell desiring change? Frankly, it's pathetic - there are one or two on this messageboard in particular who should be ashamed, they give it large but turn up for absolutely nothing and offer nothing when it comes to it (we'll see who justifies themselves on that, and I'll snigger when it's people I didn't mean). How about emailing feedback to CJ on [email protected] (I have his permission to share that!) if you can't make it? Silence equates to apathy or consent.

Instead, four of us there to make a point. It should be noted I'll knock the board out in terms of feedback so, four was a reasonable proportion of the audience(!) but think about how much better that could have been if there had been more. Just like the protest, all we're signifying is apathy, and a greater desire to watch Coronation Street than give an opinion. That opinion doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) personal, but it can be about process.

So that's that bit out the way, the rest are random personal observations.

I will say it strikes me as the Trust board is somewhat battered, and hunkering down. I will say that they have met, as a board, most of the parties involved in this dispute, and challenged them. What they haven't done is told us that! Frankly, their communication is shocking, and that's half the problem.

I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.

The emphasis throughout the meeting from the board was the primary aim was to see Coventry City playing back in Coventry. That's something we can all get behind as it's blindingly obvious! There were also a number of anti-Wasps sentiments, but an assertion that their position needs to be understood. I can buy into that as a philosophy tbh - part of the reason we end up with a disconnect is the lack of willingness to understand various parties. Understand does not equal acceptance.

We'll see. It needs the board as a whole to move, and it needs more than words, but I can believe a couple of them are certainly sincere in that they recognise a fanbase needs to be reunited, and that they need to take on board views outside of a bubble.

Thing is though, if that bubble's all they have...

Silence doesn’t equal apathy or content - it shows that the trusts claim to be a group representing the fans is a falsehood - I’d rather no one turned up

Johnson always sounds reasonable in the media but his social media statements show his true persona
 

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member
Alright, so there were c.25 of us there. It beat the Wasps 'protest' attendance but... only just! Many (Most? All?) were the board, and/or friends of the board!

Four of us were there from that protest including Moz, the outgoing chair. We (not Moz! He removed himself elegantly without giving an opinion all night!) fed back that the perception was the Trust were keen to condemn SISU and not challenge other parties and it was taken on board by the incoming chair. We'll wait and see if it is or not. They are going to have a serious look at their communication, and so they should. Note, this doesn't mean they should stop condemning SISU by any means!

But I have to ask, where were you all? I get that some are in the US or Bristol, so I get there are reasons for some, but I don't want the bleating about how you have to travel to a meeting to get your point across. This was your chance! Instead of sitting around on here complaining, why leave it to me and a small number of others to give feedback? How does that help give perception of a groundswell desiring change? Frankly, it's pathetic - there are one or two on this messageboard in particular who should be ashamed, they give it large but turn up for absolutely nothing and offer nothing when it comes to it (we'll see who justifies themselves on that, and I'll snigger when it's people I didn't mean). How about emailing feedback to CJ on [email protected] (I have his permission to share that!) if you can't make it? Silence equates to apathy or consent.

Instead, four of us there to make a point. It should be noted I'll knock the board out in terms of feedback so, four was a reasonable proportion of the audience(!) but think about how much better that could have been if there had been more. Just like the protest, all we're signifying is apathy, and a greater desire to watch Coronation Street than give an opinion. That opinion doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) personal, but it can be about process.

So that's that bit out the way, the rest are random personal observations.

I will say it strikes me as the Trust board is somewhat battered, and hunkering down. I will say that they have met, as a board, most of the parties involved in this dispute, and challenged them. What they haven't done is told us that! Frankly, their communication is shocking, and that's half the problem.

I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.

The emphasis throughout the meeting from the board was the primary aim was to see Coventry City playing back in Coventry. That's something we can all get behind as it's blindingly obvious! There were also a number of anti-Wasps sentiments, but an assertion that their position needs to be understood. I can buy into that as a philosophy tbh - part of the reason we end up with a disconnect is the lack of willingness to understand various parties. Understand does not equal acceptance.

We'll see. It needs the board as a whole to move, and it needs more than words, but I can believe a couple of them are certainly sincere in that they recognise a fanbase needs to be reunited, and that they need to take on board views outside of a bubble.

Thing is though, if that bubble's all they have...

Thank you for coming. Your input was invaluable. Great to put a name to face too. Same goes to OSB. If anyone does have feedback/ideas please send them over.

Didn’t even know it was happening otherwise I would have been there purely to see who the fuck lies Reid is

The person behind those accounts is not on the Trust board.
 

HuckerbyDublinWhelan

Well-Known Member
Alright, so there were c.25 of us there. It beat the Wasps 'protest' attendance but... only just! Many (Most? All?) were the board, and/or friends of the board!

Four of us were there from that protest including Moz, the outgoing chair. We (not Moz! He removed himself elegantly without giving an opinion all night!) fed back that the perception was the Trust were keen to condemn SISU and not challenge other parties and it was taken on board by the incoming chair. We'll wait and see if it is or not. They are going to have a serious look at their communication, and so they should. Note, this doesn't mean they should stop condemning SISU by any means!

But I have to ask, where were you all? I get that some are in the US or Bristol, so I get there are reasons for some, but I don't want the bleating about how you have to travel to a meeting to get your point across. This was your chance! Instead of sitting around on here complaining, why leave it to me and a small number of others to give feedback? How does that help give perception of a groundswell desiring change? Frankly, it's pathetic - there are one or two on this messageboard in particular who should be ashamed, they give it large but turn up for absolutely nothing and offer nothing when it comes to it (we'll see who justifies themselves on that, and I'll snigger when it's people I didn't mean). How about emailing feedback to CJ on [email protected] (I have his permission to share that!) if you can't make it? Silence equates to apathy or consent.

Instead, four of us there to make a point. It should be noted I'll knock the board out in terms of feedback so, four was a reasonable proportion of the audience(!) but think about how much better that could have been if there had been more. Just like the protest, all we're signifying is apathy, and a greater desire to watch Coronation Street than give an opinion. That opinion doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) personal, but it can be about process.

So that's that bit out the way, the rest are random personal observations.

I will say it strikes me as the Trust board is somewhat battered, and hunkering down. I will say that they have met, as a board, most of the parties involved in this dispute, and challenged them. What they haven't done is told us that! Frankly, their communication is shocking, and that's half the problem.

I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.

The emphasis throughout the meeting from the board was the primary aim was to see Coventry City playing back in Coventry. That's something we can all get behind as it's blindingly obvious! There were also a number of anti-Wasps sentiments, but an assertion that their position needs to be understood. I can buy into that as a philosophy tbh - part of the reason we end up with a disconnect is the lack of willingness to understand various parties. Understand does not equal acceptance.

We'll see. It needs the board as a whole to move, and it needs more than words, but I can believe a couple of them are certainly sincere in that they recognise a fanbase needs to be reunited, and that they need to take on board views outside of a bubble.

Thing is though, if that bubble's all they have...
You say they’ve challenged all parties... how is applauding Wasps for kicking us out of the Ricoh challenging?

We all understand wasps position, we know they said stop the legals, were all rolling our eyes at SISU still, as you said keep on at SISU. But if we want to come back to Coventry - why not a boycott of the Ricoh - hit them where’s it hurts - the wallet - that would supposedly work on sisu

You also say non attendance = consent, no I personally don’t want to legitamise David Johnson he’s a cancer on the football club and to the supporters
 

Esoterica

Well-Known Member
Alright, so there were c.25 of us there. It beat the Wasps 'protest' attendance but... only just! Many (Most? All?) were the board, and/or friends of the board!

Four of us were there from that protest including Moz, the outgoing chair. We (not Moz! He removed himself elegantly without giving an opinion all night!) fed back that the perception was the Trust were keen to condemn SISU and not challenge other parties and it was taken on board by the incoming chair. We'll wait and see if it is or not. They are going to have a serious look at their communication, and so they should. Note, this doesn't mean they should stop condemning SISU by any means!

But I have to ask, where were you all? I get that some are in the US or Bristol, so I get there are reasons for some, but I don't want the bleating about how you have to travel to a meeting to get your point across. This was your chance! Instead of sitting around on here complaining, why leave it to me and a small number of others to give feedback? How does that help give perception of a groundswell desiring change? Frankly, it's pathetic - there are one or two on this messageboard in particular who should be ashamed, they give it large but turn up for absolutely nothing and offer nothing when it comes to it (we'll see who justifies themselves on that, and I'll snigger when it's people I didn't mean). How about emailing feedback to CJ on [email protected] (I have his permission to share that!) if you can't make it? Silence equates to apathy or consent.

Instead, four of us there to make a point. It should be noted I'll knock the board out in terms of feedback so, four was a reasonable proportion of the audience(!) but think about how much better that could have been if there had been more. Just like the protest, all we're signifying is apathy, and a greater desire to watch Coronation Street than give an opinion. That opinion doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) personal, but it can be about process.

So that's that bit out the way, the rest are random personal observations.

I will say it strikes me as the Trust board is somewhat battered, and hunkering down. I will say that they have met, as a board, most of the parties involved in this dispute, and challenged them. What they haven't done is told us that! Frankly, their communication is shocking, and that's half the problem.

I will also say that everyone's favourite bogeyman on here David Johnson actually came across quite well, and quite balanced.

The emphasis throughout the meeting from the board was the primary aim was to see Coventry City playing back in Coventry. That's something we can all get behind as it's blindingly obvious! There were also a number of anti-Wasps sentiments, but an assertion that their position needs to be understood. I can buy into that as a philosophy tbh - part of the reason we end up with a disconnect is the lack of willingness to understand various parties. Understand does not equal acceptance.

We'll see. It needs the board as a whole to move, and it needs more than words, but I can believe a couple of them are certainly sincere in that they recognise a fanbase needs to be reunited, and that they need to take on board views outside of a bubble.

Thing is though, if that bubble's all they have...

They have actively driven their members and fanbase away with their antics. Of course no-one turns up. The change needs to come from them, not the fanbase they are supposed to represent.

I'm sure their primary aim is to see Coventry City back in Coventry too. It's their method of trying to achieve that which has been the core issue all along. I appreciate we're looking through the keyhole when reading your summary but it doesn't sound at all like anything is really changing. It's easy to say they've challenged all parties and that their communication has been shocking. It hasn't been when its come to anti-SISU sentiment though so it comes with a huge degree of cynicism from my side. David Johnson has not suddenly become balanced overnight either.

It needs a clean slate from their side to get their members back on board, an admittance of how've they've gone wrong and a willingness to correct that, backed up by actions, not just towards the parties involved in this mess but internally to the trust - a change in membership policy to annual renewal, a willingness to embrace technology to become more accessible, more balanced open communication etc.

A reset like that is the only way to gain enough short term faith back from their members to allow them the time they need to demonstrate their words are genuine and therefore facilitate real change. Otherwise it's going to be a very slow rebuild for them where they risk being sidelined by a new group or becoming even less relevant than they are now.
 
Last edited:

olderskyblue

Well-Known Member
Johnson always sounds reasonable in the media but his social media statements show his true persona

Interesting. You seemed reasonable at the Ricoh, yet on here.... :emoji_grin:
 

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member
I don't believe you.

As we said last night the individual who was running the accounts put himself forward for election but was not elected.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
It needs a clean slate from their side to get (their members) back on board, an admittance of how've they've gone wrong and a willingness to correct that, backed up by actions

Where have we heard that before....
 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
It's easy to say they've challenged all parties and that their communication has been shocking. It hasn't been when it's come to anti-SISU sentiment though so it comes with a huge degree of cynicism from my side.
That's the point though. It needs to be raised whenever they do challenge other parties. Personally I'd suggest flagging up when they have a meeting, and then publishing the questions they asked afterwards. I appreciate answers will be, more often than not, confidential (and I also appreciate they'd get flack for not publishing answers, but I do understand that's not possible) but it would show what they've asked to whom. It's a lot easier to criticise and praise if you know what you're supposed to be criticising and praising!

And yes exactly, I pointed out their communication was often defined by inaction at certain points. Don't expect a change tomorrow, but I'm prepared to see if it does change.

As for the lack of attendance, all I'll say is if we hadn't gone and voiced our opinions, our opinions wouldn't have been listened to, as it's easy to ignore something that isn't there. It's an easy excuse tbh. If the Trust is supposed to represent its members, it's time the members took advantage of the opportunities they have to change it. Sitting on your hands and moaning will achieve naff all, and risks them taking a direction you really don't like.
 

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member

Nick

Administrator
As for the lack of attendance, all I'll say is if we hadn't gone and voiced our opinions, our opinions wouldn't have been listened to, as it's easy to ignore something that isn't there. It's an easy excuse tbh. If the Trust is supposed to represent its members, it's time the members took advantage of the opportunities they have to change it. Sitting on your hands and moaning will achieve naff all, and risks them taking a direction you really don't like.

Fair play to you and others for going and airing your views!

This is where the Trust have the chance to start to build bridges that have been burnt, so a few points.
  • CJ started to Live Stream from the meetings, there is no reason this can't be done for every meeting (it can be locked down to Trust members only if needed)
  • I can make a section on here where threads can be made pre-meeting and post meeting, they can be moderated if required to ensure they stay constructive only and easy to digest. (Isnt just here, facebook forum and social media also!)
  • I have seen it mentioned but on the technology side there can be improvements, I am not too sure how the database is configured at the minute but in theory it shouldn't be too hard to give everybody a login to a Trust site where they can do polls etc which will be 1 vote per user.
  • In terms of communication, people need to at least feel like they are listened to and not treated as if they are stupid constantly. Obviously not every single person's views or ideas (constructive ones) will be implemented but at least let people know they are being listened to, discussed and taken on board.
  • A lot of frustration from people in threads on here is seemingly from being ignored, I get there will always be stupid shite posted but if people feel like they are listened to it takes that frustration away. LG posted something in a thread about being passionate and wanting it to work which is why he was pissed off, take things like that on board.
  • I think there also needs to be a lot more focus on the football as well in parts and not losing focus on what it's all about. There are people like CJ who will be involved because of the sport but others will be involved solely for the politics. David Johnson has openly said he has given up on the football and that he will be down at non league clubs, for example. There are plenty of people who will disagree with the politics but then if you have a look at 3PM on a Saturday they are all together in wanting a good result.
  • In general it needs to be modernised so that it isn't just the people in the pub who are involved.
 

Skybluefaz

Well-Known Member
Commendable though if they've not elected him because of it. Ellis resigning, Kalns not elected - it's a start at least.
It's a start, still shows its a vanity contest, they knew the damage it would cause electing that moron and didn't want a further popularity hit. Still need more straight talking, don't want to use a Nickism but people aren't stupid, when Ellis was called out on here ages ago we got a refusal to confirm it was him from CJ, now again, just say Kalns is behind the accounts therefore hasn't been elected. It would get more respect from fans.
 

CJ_covblaze

Well-Known Member
It's a start, still shows its a vanity contest, they knew the damage it would cause electing that moron and didn't want a further popularity hit. Still need more straight talking, don't want to use a Nickism but people aren't stupid, when Ellis was called out on here ages ago we got a refusal to confirm it was him from CJ, now again, just say Kalns is behind the accounts therefore hasn't been elected. It would get more respect from fans.

You are correct.
 

Nick

Administrator
You are correct.

Again, this is another thing that was pointed out months ago but was dismissed out of hand.

Hopefully listening to things like that will be done going forward with the new look board?

At least it was taken onboard last night so fair play for that!
 
Last edited:

mark82

Moderator
You are correct.

Thanks for confirming CJ. It's a step in the right direction. It's people like that who have turned people against the Trust.

Can we assume from this that there are now 2 board positions available (Tim Kalns & Roger Ellis)? If so, when will elections be held?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top