Trust Statement (1 Viewer)

Will be interesting to see if this is just something that will be put out and forgotten about or if they will be following it up with press coverage as they do with their other statements. Also key is what happens next. Is this just a check box exercise so they can say they've done it or will they actually start putting some pressure on Wasps?

Well, they've followed it up by immediately Retweeting Wasps propaganda :emoji_rolling_eyes:

Also tweeting about Peterborough building a new stadium in 2 years - no mention the council supporting the club as a community asset

By the looks of it, they have put it out including a little segment about Wasps, passing off the indemnity by adding "whatever that may be" THEN, burying it under a little flurry of likes and retreats!
They have not even posted it on their Facebook page.
Token effort.
Pathetic. Of course it will be forgotten about...
Also includes fuel to confuse people that there are still legals that CAN actually be dropped - Rubbish....

Flying Fokker said:

They always fall short of committing to inside the Coventry boundary. Regular 7k crowds could be the norm unless we are in the city. No shows at Birmingham suggest we need to be in Cov.

Click to expand...

Why would it have to be inside the boundary - Binley Woods, Baginton, other sites are on the edge of the City and would be fine for 99% of fans surely?

And this Gem just for a bit of balance-

SISU remains committed to providing CCFC with its own stadium in the Coventry area. We are grateful to the EFL for their support and patience in this matter and will continue to work closely with them throughout the planning and development process. We will provide CCFC with all the assistance required to enable the Club to return to the Coventry area, in a stadium it and its fans can again finally call home.

shepardo01 said:

By the looks of it, they have put it out including a little segment about Wasps, passing off the indemnity by adding "whatever that may be" THEN, burying it under a little flurry of likes and retreats!
They have not even posted it on their Facebook page.
Token effort.
Pathetic. Of course it will be forgotten about...
Also includes fuel to confuse people that there are still legals that CAN actually be dropped - Rubbish....

Click to expand...

You can tell the approach, if they want it to be seen it's on the telegraph and cwr before their own site.

Nick said:

You can tell the approach, if they want it to be seen it's on the telegraph and cwr before their own site.

Click to expand...

Can someone on twitter ask about the October November December and January minutes and whether they have had a reply to their questions to wasps yet? Have asked cj who thought they had been published. I would love the trust to apologise to Sisu for working behind their backs to support a change of ownership and recognise their mistake and over reach of their position as a group of supporters. Things like that make a difference. I think if I met with joy I would apologise for hating her for moving Ccfc to Northampton and risking the club my son and I hoped to enjoy for decades as I did with my dad. That’s how respect and communication works, if someone isn’t listening you don’t just repeat the same statement and shout louder and louder. At some point you change tack

Found the minutes up to December ignore me

Sky Blue Pete said:

Found the minutes up to December ignore me

Click to expand...

If they have all of a sudden been published retrospectively, how do we know they are accurate?

They don’t say much in reality. Short term aim to get ccfc back in coventry and long term aim to change the ownership of the club. Wow

The silence is deafening from wasps to their email.

shepardo01 said:

If they have all of a sudden been published retrospectively, how do we know they are accurate?

Click to expand...

Don’t think they were late I wasn’t looking in the right place and it was just that the September ones put on twitter on 17/2

Basically all 3 parties continue to be feckless and to blame each other for the bleeding obvious. The insects are the obstacle and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Sky Blue Pete said:

Don’t think they were late I wasn’t looking in the right place and it was just that the September ones put on twitter on 17/2

Click to expand...

Pretty sure they hadn’t put minutes up for around a year. I think they put them up when it was called out recently.

The Trust are no different today than they were.

Posting minutes and mentioning the indemnity (in a totally non effective way) is them doing the the bare fucking minimum. Throwing shade about ‘legals’ is another clue.

They have an agenda. And going after Wasps isn’t it.

They've only been posted in last few days, I chased CJ on Twitter about it.
Curiously I notice there are some missing - April, May, June, September.
Not had time to read through but from what Pete says there's little of interest?

Frostie said:

"Wasps demanded a further agreement to be signed both by the Football Club and SISU. This agreement introduced conditions that would unreasonably restrict the Club and SISU’s basic legal rights and would commit the Club and SISU to underwrite Wasps’ costs and any future damages."

NEWS: Statement issued by Coventry City Owners SISU following groundshare announcement

Click to expand...

That's SISU's interpretation. We just don't know the details

olderskyblue said:

That's SISU's interpretation. We just don't know the details

Click to expand...

The fact that the indemnity is shrouded in mystery is bizarre. SISU’s statement is as open and descriptive as anyone’s been regarding it...and that’s not saying much.

The common denominator is certain entities haven’t even wanted to acknowledge it. Wasps, The Trust (up until the ineffective mention today) or the local media.

Now that little collection of parties all have connections don’t they...

*Hoffman’s takeover bid (that SISU claimed involved Wasps) which was backed by the Trust. *The Trust and their media connections (Conn).
*Hoffman, a close personal friend of Linnell.

Whatever this indemnity is about, isn’t it interesting why the above parties have huge issues talking about it?

A small step forward that in the great scheme of things means very little. EU need to pull their finger out and get a ruling done. We might get an idea then if the end is in sight. (Subject to appeal obviously)

The Trust are open to reform. They're open to having a sit down and discussing the way forward. Would 3 or 4 people be willing to put themselves forward for a meeting with the Trust and forming some sort partnership so it's not the trust but a general group of City fans together?

Jcap said:

Why would it have to be inside the boundary - Binley Woods, Baginton, other sites are on the edge of the City and would be fine for 99% of fans surely?

Click to expand...

I think it’s better although it makes sense to be near good egress points on the current road network.
Maybe car park C is an option? That’s if this court case goes against SISU. Then it will be years of further wrangling anyway. The Jimmy Hill era fans will be long gone and city will be homeless still. You won’t get many dragging their kids to game either.

on the bright side. I’ll be In my seventies remembering the good old days at Highfield Road. Driving a crossover electric golf buggy, going to the gym and watching a hologram of my favourite female antiques road trip expert...oh...the possibilities are endless.
Back to the stadium now. Where were we?

For me, it's starting to look like whatever the Trust say or do it gets jumped on. They can't do wrong for right.

So in that, who is willing to sit down with them and plan a way foward suiting all parties? I'm half interested but I think there are people probably far more qualified than me on the facts (I didnt even attend games for a number of years..not sure if that would be an issue) and I know I'd struggle to get to meetings so wouldn't want to half arse it.

It's more about what the trust don't say. This isn't a new thing, it's been going on years.

They have had to be prompted to publish minutes or mention the indemnity. They had to be hassled for a year about their blokes behaviour on social media after cj was telling me how wrong I was and that he wouldn't do that.

If the trust really are willing to listen then great, it's just that its been the same cycle for years now.

Nick said:

It's more about what the trust don't say. This isn't a new thing, it's been going on years.

They have had to be prompted to publish minutes or mention the indemnity. They had to be hassled for a year about their blokes behaviour on social media after cj was telling me how wrong I was and that he wouldn't do that.

If the trust really are willing to listen then great, it's just that its been the same cycle for years now.

Click to expand...

They're open to sitting down and discussing how it can all be improved though. Would you sit down with them Nick? Got to be worth a shot? Nothing to lose?

PurpleBin said:

They're open to sitting down and discussing how it can all be improved though. Would you sit down with them Nick? Got to be worth a shot? Nothing to lose?

Click to expand...

If they show signs of actually meaning it and would take things on board.

Again, this is something that has gone round and round for years. It occurs when they get questioned.

Have a look through cjs threads asking for ideas and feedback and then see how much is implemented.

PurpleBin said:

The Trust are open to reform. They're open to having a sit down and discussing the way forward. Would 3 or 4 people be willing to put themselves forward for a meeting with the Trust and forming some sort partnership so it's not the trust but a general group of City fans together?

Click to expand...

I’m certain at least that many have been talking since our statement.

PurpleBin said:

They're open to sitting down and discussing how it can all be improved though. Would you sit down with them Nick? Got to be worth a shot? Nothing to lose?

Click to expand...

They are portrayed as a bit secretive and sinister. Moz had always seemed sound

They certainly lost their way over their relationship with Wasps and their efforts have been pretty poor and ineffective in recent years, but I think sitting down and talking can only lead to good things.

There was some effort to get SBT representation on their board... can’t recall what the outcome was But I don’t think it went anywhere. ‍

Nick said:

If they show signs of actually meaning it and would take things on board.

Again, this is something that has gone round and round for years. It occurs when they get questioned.

Have a look through cjs threads asking for ideas and feedback and then see how much is implemented.

Click to expand...

I hear you, genuinely. Still think it's different now...

Sky Blue Pete said:

I’m certain at least that many have been talking since our statement.

Click to expand...

Definitely. There have been signs of progression.

PurpleBin said:

I hear you, genuinely. Still think it's different now...

Click to expand...

Hopefully it will be!

Covkid1968# said:

There was some effort to get SBT representation on their board... can’t recall what the outcome was But I don’t think it went anywhere. ‍

Click to expand...

Nobody could be arsed

PurpleBin said:

I hear you, genuinely. Still think it's different now...

Click to expand...

But it’s about credibility isn’t it? Jump into bed with wasps for years then all of a sudden try band get the fans onside. I have not seen many people that have anything positive to say about them?

This statement feels a bit ‘look at me!’ And attention seeking, the content is ok but what’s it going to do. If it stated we are in discussions with all parties in making this happen I would be more confident of their ability to represent the fan base. Sending out bland statements without any substance behind it won’t pressure anyone to make decisions about returning to Coventry.

Covstu said:

But it’s about credibility isn’t it? Jump into bed with wasps for years then all of a sudden try band get the fans onside. I have not seen many people that have anything positive to say about them?

This statement feels a bit ‘look at me!’ And attention seeking, the content is ok but what’s it going to do. If it stated we are in discussions with all parties in making this happen I would be more confident of their ability to represent the fan base. Sending out bland statements without any substance behind it won’t pressure anyone to make decisions about returning to Coventry.

Click to expand...

Aren’t all statements attention seeking? Isn’t the the point of statements?

shmmeee said:

Aren’t all statements attention seeking? Isn’t the the point of statements?

Click to expand...

Depends on what they are designed for and it’s intended purpose, we are in a very potentially successful season and have probably heard from SBT about 3 times over this period (if that), just seems a strange time to pipe up with the same obvious statements

Two options. We either stay here, continue to complain about everything they do (rightly or wrongly) argue amongst ourselves or we sit with them and open something up.

Even if one of us sat with them, joined their board and then acted as the go between the two SBTs...

"EU need to pull their finger out and get a ruling done"


What the hell takes so long??? Must be a year now?