There is a finance report in the AGM 2012 minutes online. They donated £800+ to the Jimmy Hill statue for a start.
Given the amount of money required to takeover the club/own part of the club, this is exactly the sort of thing the trust should be spending the membership fees on. I assume this was agreed to by the majority of members? Or was it a decision made be the board of the trust?
<p>
They aren't trying to takeover the club.
Why not, they've got nearly a mornings rent together now?
just leave them alone, they are the only ones that genuinely have the club at heart!
<p>
They aren't trying to takeover the club.
They want a stake in the club. That means spending cash they currently don't have but you are wrong saying they don't want a slice. They just haven't worked out yet how to get it as at the moment no one wants to give them a piece.
They want a stake in the club. That means spending cash they currently don't have but you are wrong saying they don't want a slice. They just haven't worked out yet how to get it as at the moment no one wants to give them a piece.
<p>
I know after listening to Tim fisher for the past year its difficult to believe official statements now, but we should accept what the trust says. They say that they just want to stand up for fans interest.
The main aim of the trust is to get someone into "Board Meetings" and in turn relay back to the supporters what is really going on behind closed doors.
They want to show the fans what the meaning of "Transparency" really means, instead of the "Verbal crap" that comes out atm.
Money.
They should of saved that money and used it when needed instead of buying a pointless statue.
just leave them alone, they are the only ones that genuinely have the club at heart!
Much like when SISU should have "Paid the Rent" that's been owed for the last 12 months?
I digress...Supporters paid towards that "Pointless Statue" because of what JH represented back in the day.(Are you old enough to remember?) Without him, CCFC would not have reached the 1st Division(Premier league for the youngsters.) After which CCFC spent 34 years. All I'm saying to you is..don't "Diss" something that you never contributed towards!
It is pointless. We don't need a statue to remind us. We all know what he's done for the club. A statue just makes it seem very vain to me. The money would of been better spent helping the future of the club. Nothing is more important at the moment.
And yes, SISU should of paid the rent. It's too high I agree, but the way SISU have gone about it is wrong.
Thinking about it, they've probably got enough for half an hour now with the £800 on the Jimmy Hill Statue.
Being serious for a moment, who does the statue belong to? The club or ACL?
Whoaaa!...Let's backtrack, and clarify a couple of things here.
a) Where exactly is the vanity coming from?...Certainly not JH..He never had a say in it! Pride in our former Manager is shown as do Man Utd, Leeds Utd, even Wembley Stadium.!!!
b) If all of the SBT buy ST's,(Some of them are ST holders) or pay on the gate..Aren't they already spending for the future of the Club?
c) The last time I looked, SISU were the owners of CCFC and are ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of the Club...Are they doing a good job?:facepalm:
I see Curly, Larry, and Mo are the first ones to take the "Piss" out of somebody who is trying to do something constructive!
It is pointless. We don't need a statue to remind us. We all know what he's done for the club. A statue just makes it seem very vain to me. The money would of been better spent helping the future of the club. Nothing is more important at the moment.
And yes, SISU should of paid the rent. It's too high I agree, but the way SISU have gone about it is wrong.
However you feel about it, sufficient people (and former players by the way) felt strongly enough that they contributed well over £100,000 to commission the statue. The Trust weren't the only ones.A) I know he never had a say in it, I just don't really like that sort of thing. Everyone in football knows what he's done and a statue just seems very meh..to me. Money could of been spent on more worthwhile things. Also, if we lose the Rioch that statue is going to look mighty stupid up there isn't it..
B) Yes and no. The money goes towards players/staff/ricoh etc that we have now more then anything else. Anything extra the SBT get could of been spent helping for the future - like towards the academy or so on. Take the Coventry Blaze for example, they have something called the 100 Club. All the money they get goes towards sponsoring (training/equipment etc) our younger players. Thanks to them, potential future British stars like James Griffin are able to play the game at the highest level in the UK (EIHL).
C) I never said SISU didn't own CCFC. Just that they should of paid the rent then spoke to them about a reduction. The way SISU have gone about it is just plain stupid. They've made some silly mistakes which has cost the club dearly.
However you feel about it, sufficient people (and former players by the way) felt strongly enough that they contributed well over £100,000 to commission the statue. The Trust weren't the only ones.
When the future of the Academy was under threat a few years ago, the Trust raised around £60,000 for it, so to imply they've not done anything to help the club and its future is simply wrong.
A) I know he never had a say in it, I just don't really like that sort of thing. Everyone in football knows what he's done and a statue just seems very meh..to me. Money could of been spent on more worthwhile things. Also, if we lose the Rioch that statue is going to look mighty stupid up there isn't it..
B) Yes and no. The money goes towards players/staff/ricoh etc that we have now more then anything else. Anything extra the SBT get could of been spent helping for the future - like towards the academy or so on. Take the Coventry Blaze for example, they have something called the 100 Club. All the money they get goes towards sponsoring (training/equipment etc) our younger players. Thanks to them, potential future British stars like James Griffin are able to play the game at the highest level in the UK (EIHL).
C) I never said SISU didn't own CCFC. Just that they should of paid the rent then spoke to them about a reduction. The way SISU have gone about it is just plain stupid. They've made some silly mistakes which has cost the club dearly.
Let's backtrack again...
a) your opinion, and unless you personally contributed to SBT funds, then you should keep your nose out of it...Would I tell you what computer to buy?, would I tell you how many kids to have?...Your answer would be "Mind your own fecking business" and if you didn't, then your not much of a man!
b)Any money paid by ST holders or "Pay at the gate" are paid in good faith to the owners, who are obliged to give a service for this money....What more do you want???
Would you like SISU to say...Ok! you've paid to get into the match....Now you have to pay for the "Ref", pay for the "Ball" pay for the hair gell that Bailey uses, pay for David Bell's cough medicine(He's got a touch of Flu now). To put it bluntly mate...who are you to tell SBT how to spend their money!
c)The point I made about SISU was...THEY own CCFC and any expense to be paid out for anything to do with the Club is THEIR sole responsibility!
PS...A few on this forum know that after my football career finished, I played Ice Hockey(Albeit not brilliantly) for Cardiff "Second lining" when they first joined the BIHA for a season but my knees didn't hold out. Leisure time took me into "Lining" and "Reffing" for a little while. So you will know that I know all about sponsoring Gloves, padding, Helmet, and Skates"Good old "Bauer Internationals":wave:
Sorry, but you've completely twisted what I've said. I don't even know where you've got half of that stuff from..
I think that my replies to your statements, are perfectly clear and rational.
You say SBT should "Make better use of their money rather than contribute to the JH statue"
Is that correct?....My answer quite plainly is It's none of your business what they do with funds that you have not contributed too!
I finished with.....You don't need to tell me about sponsoring Ice Hockey players...Been there done that watched the Video mate ok?
:facepalm:
I think that my replies to your statements, are perfectly clear and rational.
You say SBT should "Make better use of their money rather than contribute to the JH statue"
Is that correct?....My answer quite plainly is It's none of your business what they do with funds that you have not contributed too!
I finished with.....You don't need to tell me about sponsoring Ice Hockey players...Been there done that watched the Video mate ok?
:facepalm:
I think that my replies to your statements, are perfectly clear and rational.
You say SBT should "Make better use of their money rather than contribute to the JH statue"
Is that correct?....My answer quite plainly is It's none of your business what they do with funds that you have not contributed too!
I finished with.....You don't need to tell me about sponsoring Ice Hockey players...Been there done that watched the Video mate ok?
:facepalm:
Not surprisingly, I don't agree with that. People who don't contribute financially to something have no right to an opinion, is that what you're saying? If so, does that mean the fact that you do not attend home games negate your right to an opinion regarding those matches?
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?