Poll: The Trust (1 Viewer)

do you mean as we currently understand it or what it should be?

Yeah, is it their current stance or what their stance should be?

"To oppose the football club owners" is how I see the Trust at the moment (and long before too).

My post (copied below) in "ask Neil" in relation to him being elected to the trust board covers my vote "to oppose the football club owners "

Ask Neil:
Why have the "trust" refused to acknowledge the part played by Wasps and CCC in forcing the club out of it's own City. (Some statements have mentioned "parties involved" but never (I believe) specifically those mentioned above)

Why does whoever is in charge of the Trusts twitter account only like/retweet any anti SISU comments. (a few, very small amount of others may slip through!)

Why have any approaches to them todrive/push pressure against Wasps been ignored or fobbed off... or even theinstance where they distanced themselves from a small protest..?

Why have they (allegedly) met Wasps andthe council behind closed doors, then applauded the council, and wasps in acosy up before a trip to london for a SISU out protest....?

Why do they have the make up of boardmembers as they have (ex councillor) , members who go under false names ontwitter to abuse/discredit others who speak out against Wasps/council...

What exactly was their part in theconsortium (truth please!)

vow said:

"To oppose the football club owners" is how I see the Trust at the moment (and long before too).

Click to expand...

To be fair...I think we're all pretty much opposed to the football club owners. I think people will vote for that without really thinking of what it means.

In other words, I agree if that was their main stance...but so long as they opposed the other parties complicit in this mess as well. Sisu do deserve criticism going their way after the way they've run the club for 10 years. That doesn't mean that others should be ignored.

Tough one to answer G as I think at least two of the options above could rightfully be picked.

Other: ‘SISU out at all costs and fuck what else happens’.

Skyblueweeman said:

To be fair...I think we're all pretty much opposed to the football club owners. I think people will vote for that without really thinking of what it means.

In other words, I agree if that was their main stance...but so long as they opposed the other parties complicit in this mess as well. Sisu do deserve criticism going their way after the way they've run the club for 10 years. That doesn't mean that others should be ignored.

Tough one to answer G as I think at least two of the options above could rightfully be picked.

Click to expand...

TBf i think attitude towards Sisu is changing. I know mine has. I think they ran us awfully for a long time. I would say since relegation to league 2 however, there has been a clear change in direction. This of course could be linked to Dave Boddy. But speaking objectively over the last 2/3 years, they haven't got much wrong. I blame the current stadium issue solely on Wasps and the council, but of course the long term issue SISU is a huge factor.

To oppose the clubs owner's whilst blaming no one else and sucking upto the insect scum & the council

I don’t think other than the first time they came round collecting £1’s and signatures however many years ago I’ve ever had anything from the Trust to know what their current stance is. I’m guessing my £1 and email address meant I’m a paid up member but I’m pretty sure I’ve never had any correspondence from them to ask what my view is / was at any point since they took my quid.

Or did I just give my email and cash to a stranger with a bucket?

Other response is the best option. It's muddled, and unclear what it is and also what it should be.

A complete rebrand.

Top to bottom.

They should be a supporters club. First and foremost.

I was at the last game of the season and saw the awards given to players by the Leamington branch and the London branch.

An award is a start. Maybe a monthly one voted by the members?

Have the trust ever been positive about the playing side of the club- apart from gleefully celebrating administration and subsequent points loss?

Have they ever been positive about anything?

They should be organising the travel to St Andrews.

For example-They should be first port of call if there’s a strip redesign.

In fact if their relationship and stance was right then Coventry City Owners or Club,would have to talk to them whenever a decision was being considered that would affect the fans.

The Trust would become an integral and essential part of Coventry City and their fans.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

skybluegod said:

TBf i think attitude towards Sisu is changing. I know mine has. I think they ran us awfully for a long time. I would say since relegation to league 2 however, there has been a clear change in direction. This of course could be linked to Dave Boddy. But speaking objectively over the last 2/3 years, they haven't got much wrong. I blame the current stadium issue solely on Wasps and the council, but of course the long term issue SISU is a huge factor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, don't get wrong...my opinion on them has softened in the past couple of years...more so recently with new information that's come to light but that shouldn't exonerate them for previous misdemeanors - and I know you're not saying that, but just to clarify.

Same as a couple of wins at Wembley doesn't mask previous shortcomings of our illustrious owners.

Grendel said:

If you are any brand you are always trying to comprehend what the perception of your values are against your MS and KPI's - so many companies try a snapshot opinion to look at the outcome. So the response we are seeing on here from the majority against the correlation of another poll can legitimately show the view of its strategy is alien to the best possible desired result. It is a direct comparison to a failed motor manufacturer campaign - when the perceived desire was thwarted because the targeted market was not the correct one.

Click to expand...

I meant the best option for me. That's my opinion that they're muddled and unclear...

I struggle to give one answer...there are many stances I could tick.

They certainly appear a SISU out organisation at the expense of everything else. They've ended up with an echo chamber where at meetings the only people there, and there's not many in attendance it seems, are the ones that agree with them. We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.

You're asking an awful lot of questions all of a sudden, Grenders. Are you a policeman? Can you change your name to Inspector Grendel?

The biggest issue is that there is not 1 vote for supporting the football club, shouldn't a real trust have this as the number 1 priority

chiefdave said:

the only people there, and there's not many in attendance it seems, are the ones that agree with them.

Click to expand...

Errrrm...

NorthernWisdom said:

Errrrm...

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.

Click to expand...

chiefdave said:

They certainly appear a SISU out organisation at the expense of everything else. They've ended up with an echo chamber where at meetings the only people there, and there's not many in attendance it seems, are the ones that agree with them. We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Chief, where did you get that impression from? The "trust meeting" thread covers all that went on at the meeting, and clearly shows that view to be wrong.

There were a couple of people who didn't agree with us (I expected more) but no one from the trust board argued against us, just the opposite. They were listening, and were taking our criticism on board.

They certainly were not dismissive to the 4 of us putting our alternative viewpoint.

As said before, their actions going forward will be the true test. What they need is to understand it is not just 4 people who feel this way, hence how useful grendel's activity could be.

Grendel said:

The minutes to me still reflected the way of thinking - there were acknowledgments of what people felt like sure but still the digs about pathetic crowds and the strange reference that no one is that bothered about wasps

Essentially the perception on here of th men reflects their approach and actions but is not what people on here thinks will bring any success. That’s the problem.

Click to expand...

Then we need to keep attending meetings, and raising these points. tbf, I didnt expect 1 meeting to solve the issues we see, but it was a more positive start than I expected (certainly at the meeting anyway. The minutes covered most of it accurately, but Wasps were not mentioned much at the meeting as I recall, just us criticising the lack of trust support for the "protest")

Grendel said:

The minutes to me still reflected the way of thinking - there were acknowledgments of what people felt like sure but still the digs about pathetic crowds and the strange reference that no one is that bothered about wasps

Essentially the perception on here of th men reflects their approach and actions but is not what people on here thinks will bring any success. That’s the problem.

Click to expand...

Yes, the "pathetic crowds" dig was, well, pathetic.

olderskyblue said:

Chief, where did you get that impression from? The "trust meeting" thread covers all that went on at the meeting, and clearly shows that view to be wrong.

There were a couple of people who didn't agree with us (I expected more) but no one from the trust board argued against us, just the opposite. They were listening, and were taking our criticism on board.

They certainly were not dismissive to the 4 of us putting our alternative viewpoint.

As said before, their actions going forward will be the true test. What they need is to understand it is not just 4 people who feel this way, hence how useful grendel's activity could be.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking just about one meeting. It would be pointless Grendel meeting this chap if we're working on the basis that because the board didn't shout you down at the last meeting everything is now OK.

While I applaud you for attending the meeting and raising the concerns this is not something that hasn't been flagged up to the trust numerous times before and ignored. As you say we need to see their actions going forward and the trusts summary of the meeting doesn't inspire me with confidence that anything will change.

chiefdave said:

I'm not talking just about one meeting. It would be pointless Grendel meeting this chap if we're working on the basis that because the board didn't shout you down at the last meeting everything is now OK.

While I applaud you for attending the meeting and raising the concerns this is not something that hasn't been flagged up to the trust numerous times before and ignored. As you say we need to see their actions going forward and the trusts summary of the meeting doesn't inspire me with confidence that anything will change.

Click to expand...

It was this bit that made me ask...

We can see from the last meeting how dismissive they are when someone attends and puts an alternative viewpoint.

Click to expand...

However, we are all agreed that one meeting in itself won't change much, if anything. Time will tell I guess.

olderskyblue said:

It was this bit that made me ask...

Click to expand...

It was the post they made on their website after the meeting that made me think that.

chiefdave said:

It was the post they made on their website after the meeting that made me think that.

Click to expand...

I think you can read into that post what you like really. I was encouraged. It reflects concerns, and reports what was spoken about. They bigged up the Sixfields bit too much in my view, and in the rest there are occasional things I'd maybe think weren't quite as reported, but not significant enough for me to be that bothered as we all see things slightly differently.

Again, we were allowed to give our view, listened to by the board, and there was an acknowledgement that going forward things need to change. That was reflected in the meeting notes, in my view.

CJ has seemingly been going to every meeting with alternative views... and fuck all has happened. In fact, the bile gets louder from certain members on Twitter.

The problem seems to be within the core of the Trust. Hopefully (not holding my breath), Grendel’s meeting and presentation changes that.

Personally I could have picked 1, 6 and 7 out of them points.