play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
It would if nobody went that's the whole point.
Dear Sky Blue Trust (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NorthernWisdom
- Start date
It would if nobody went that's the whole point.
Think you have to live on the site to keep up unfortunately Steve. First of all the trust were a load of wasters then you asked ACL to concede somewhat . They liked that ! Then you went and spoiled by asking the six fielders not to go in a resolution . That's a no no because they have offspring that need to see the team ,and/or they are there to support the lads .
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
The trust haven't asked people not to go to Sixfields.
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
But I don't go to Sixfields
This thread is demonstrating more and more by its content the futility of whether people do go or not. All the time people bicker over that is time they could be spent putting pressure on those who have contributed to decisions that have lead us here, and those who can contribute to decisions to get us back.
play_in_skyblue_stripes
Well-Known Member
But I don't go to Sixfields
This thread is demonstrating more and more by its content the futility of whether people do go or not. All the time people bicker over that is time they could be spent putting pressure on those who have contributed to decisions that have lead us here, and those who can contribute to decisions to get us back.
Actually by not going to Northampton puts pressure on the Football league.
The Northampton move is untenable already but near zero makes it totally. National pressure through zero attendances would make FL act.
History shows eventually people power always wins, maybe we have to wait for that a bit longer in North Korea to take effect.
Nothing achieved by the Trust by being balanced is the cry - really? The March x 2 wasn't an achievement? the Q&A's wasn't an achievement? The information gained and given to fans and members wasn't an achievement? Actually having regular access to all parties wasn't an achievement? ........... Information is key in this it allows the lies to be exposed. Yes the Trust have made mistakes, you tell me who hasn't but they have achieved more than some realise and fans know a lot more because of that.
Frankly I can see the Trust returning to what it was 3 years ago and being cut off from the club - the very thing its constitution is at pains to point it should have a relationship with
The art of a good campaign is to know the opposition, set realistic targets, apply effective pressure, keep it focussed and inclusive. Not just throw the kitchen sink at it
frustrations vented
Marches... in the wrong place, never bothered to take it to SISU or FL who are the ones it needs to be directed at not walking through the City Centre infront of no one = Embarrassing.
Information - Information we can easily gain on a forum or a newspaper.
Same trust who have tried to get places on the board with SISU.
Sat on the fence too many times being soft tarts.
Yep really changed alot haven't they.
Absolute Joke and to think some donated even a quid.
What the hell are you talking about?
You want your pound back, happy to give it to you.. Just ask me.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
History shows people power works when people act in an active manner, not when passive.
Zero or few or a few less few makes no difference. To get hung up on the numbers is a total waste of time and energy.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
This risks becoming patronising and mutual back slapping but...
Here's a post where I fundamentally disagree with one sentence in it. Most of the rest, however, I agree with. The art of successful campaigns is taking the bits most can get most behind. On a micro level, and pragmatically, I suspect we could agree to differ over the sentence in contention, and focus on the elements in common.
Because what, after all, is more important? Whether one or other of us is right or... whether we are Coventry fans united by a simple desire to see the club back in its rightful city?
Fight the most important battles first.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
If SF was empty we would soon be back in Coventry. The FL would have to act.
But supporting the lads and watching their team is more important than where the team play to some.
But supporting the lads and watching their team is more important than where the team play to some.
Nick
Administrator
There is no proof at all that would happen. The fl.don't care.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
The hang ups on absolutes is really rather disturbing.
May as well say if 100% of fans who watched against Crewe turned up every week, SISU would never have been here in the first place.
Or if 100% of the fans who watched against Crewe, the march would have got media coverage it didn't... except that's not quite true, is it.
We don't have the berating of those on the march for being the few who march, do we? And why not? Because it's sufficient to make a story, to make some news.
And once again an attempt is made to divert from actual issues by a desire for some mythical 100%.
If 100% of Coventrians paid to watch the club we'd be world champions and need a stadium 10 times the size of the Ricoh. *We* are the few as it is, so we have to maximise the few we have instead of polarising into smaller and smaller factions.
May as well say if 100% of fans who watched against Crewe turned up every week, SISU would never have been here in the first place.
Or if 100% of the fans who watched against Crewe, the march would have got media coverage it didn't... except that's not quite true, is it.
We don't have the berating of those on the march for being the few who march, do we? And why not? Because it's sufficient to make a story, to make some news.
And once again an attempt is made to divert from actual issues by a desire for some mythical 100%.
If 100% of Coventrians paid to watch the club we'd be world champions and need a stadium 10 times the size of the Ricoh. *We* are the few as it is, so we have to maximise the few we have instead of polarising into smaller and smaller factions.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
FL do not run the FL Sky Sports do.
An empty SF would taint their prize cash cow rock the boat and rumblings from advertisers and governement would soon set things rolling, money especially Murdoch money can move even the most imoveable.
Whats the worse thing that can happen, SISU loose the golden share ?
Nick
Administrator
Nobody would care, there would be more pressing things like rooney.getting a new car or something
TheOldFive
New Member
I'm not sure about your first point, things like this haven't worked out as anticipated in the past have they? Some were all for Administration to rid us of Sisu but that backfired horribly. Beware of the unintended consequences etc.
As for your last point, yes, that is definitely true. We'll get back eventually if people do the right thing and back the club. Pretty obvious what could happen if they don't.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
Backing the club ? Paying money to and sitting next to the very people who have destroyed our clubs history and moved in 35 miles away, for no other reason than to distress the operators of a public owed landmark building.
Your grandparents probably guided the German bombers towards the city in 1940.
L
limoncello
Guest
That's a fantastic argument which I'm going to save for our next sponsored retardathon.
You will receive short thrift if you use ww 2 analogies on this site ( it touches a nerve don't ya know). Shhhhh
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
Thanks. I assume you are the current holder of such a title and set the bar high.
TheOldFive
New Member
Not quite.
You can't destroy a history. A future maybe. But who knows? It remains unwritten. Which was my point. I think I understand yours too now, interesting views.
Gosford Green
Well-Known Member
They started it.
lamtara2006
Member
I think there is also a danger in getting too hung-up on the wording of that part of the Resolution rather than the spirit behind it.
The wording says: 'Call for a complete supporters' boycott of City matches at Sixfields.' But any sensible person - and I know Bruce Walker who has made the proposal to be one of those - doesn't anticipate that nobody will go, we all recognise that there are a hard-core who would ignore a boycott for various reasons. I strongly believe them to be wrong but defend their right to make their own choice.
But in calling for a complete boycott, ie. encouraging, persuading, cajoling in an assertive (not aggressive) manner and making it clear that this would be Trust policy if the Resolution is passed, it may at least reduce the numbers who attend and increase the force of non-attendance as a principled protest statement.
I hope the Resolution passes but with the safeguard that it is intended as a policy position, not a rule - ie. nobody gets ostracised or expelled by the Trust for attending Sixfields. It should be an interesting debate on Monday, I would encourage all SBT members to attend the AGM and put their views.
Nick
Administrator
What do you mean by trust policy?
If the Trust can give people evidence that them going is actually keeping them there or if they can show them that by not going it will make a difference I am pretty sure the attendances would drop. To date nobody has been able to, it is just opinions and myths so far.
If the Trust can give people evidence that them going is actually keeping them there or if they can show them that by not going it will make a difference I am pretty sure the attendances would drop. To date nobody has been able to, it is just opinions and myths so far.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
The problem is though, as we see here on this board, the consequences of such a position. Some take the idea of a boycott as an invitation to abuse, insult, split, discourage... and reduce our fanbase by behaving like a cancer.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I know mrtrench differs to me which shows it is all opinion really but... I've worked fairly closely with some hedge fund managers before (not the same as being one btw
I leave the financial breakdowns to the likes of OSB), and it is my informed opinion that it makes zero difference to the strategy.
Last edited:
lamtara2006
Member
I used the term 'policy' in the sense that it is a 'guiding principle' that supporters should not attend Sixfields.
We are both intelligent enough to realise that there is no certainty that further reduction in attendances will have the desired impact, only time will tell. So it can only be a calculated strategy - attendances of (say) less than 1,000 city fans is more likely to make Fisher & Co consider the viability of continuing at Sixfields than if his projection of 3k to 7k had been achieved.
What I can offer in evidence is a conversation that I had with one of the Otium Directors several weeks ago, witnessed by another contributor to SBT who arranged the meeting. I stated that Coventry City was unsustainable with the level of support at Northampton so unless Coventry City returned to the Ricoh for the start of the new season the club would effectively be dead. Not only did he agree with me (it was the only thing we agreed on in 2 hours of conversation) he actually completed the sentence for me!
Therefore, it seems to me that a decision by the Trust calling for a complete boycott would increase the psychological pressure on the Otium Board to seek a swift resolution of this impasse, or at least to commence a meaningful dialogue with ACL/CCC.
What I can't determine is whether the one person that counts within the owner/director group, Joy Seppala, will be swayed from her strategy in which the life/death of Coventry City Football Club seems to be irrelevant, the only thing that matters is pursuing the Appeal process in a (hopefully) vain attempt to seize ownership of the Ricoh for a pittance.
Nick
Administrator
So if the "policy" does come into play, what will happen? Will we get mailshots trying to get us not to go? It sounds like when I have Jehovas knocking on my door trying to persuade me to change when I clearly don't want to.
The thing is with that evidence though is which director was it? People pick and choose things that they label "bullshit". For example if it was Tim Fisher (not saying it was) then one week the Trust could be saying "Tim Fisher said this about us moving back" then the next could be saying "Tim Fisher is a liar, where is this stadium, where are our players". Shouldn't everything be taken with a massive pinch of salt / barrel that anybody says?
A good example is the Joy Seppala and "liquidation" thing, it is taken as gospel that she was going to liquidate the club but the same people call her a bullshitter about the stadium and other things (or whatever suits their view).
The thing is with that evidence though is which director was it? People pick and choose things that they label "bullshit". For example if it was Tim Fisher (not saying it was) then one week the Trust could be saying "Tim Fisher said this about us moving back" then the next could be saying "Tim Fisher is a liar, where is this stadium, where are our players". Shouldn't everything be taken with a massive pinch of salt / barrel that anybody says?
A good example is the Joy Seppala and "liquidation" thing, it is taken as gospel that she was going to liquidate the club but the same people call her a bullshitter about the stadium and other things (or whatever suits their view).
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
The idea that the level of support doesn't matter to hedge fund strategy is palpable nonsense, ultimately the investors will withdraw funding if they come to believe Joy's plan is not going to work .. roll on the day when SISU investors realise their folly & plll the plug on Joys' divisive tactics.
Last edited by a moderator:
lamtara2006
Member
And the opposite reaction occurs too: those of us that stand on the Hill being described as 'Muppets' for example. You are always going to have a few people, usually isolated instances, people who get carried away by 'fundamentalist ideology' and can't accept that others are entitled to their viewpoint.
That shouldn't stop the Trust from taking the position that supporters' attendance at Sixfields is unhelpful to an early return to the Ricoh and calling on everybody to stop going as a matter of principle. It may also need a statement firmly discouraging verbal or physical abuse of Sky Blues supporters who don't hold to that principle.
lamtara2006
Member
How the Trust take it forward would be a matter for the Trust Board. For me, it only requires a clear feed back to the membership that this is the policy, whereas previously the Trust have had an ambiguous position.
Had I wished to name the Director concerned, I would have done so. There are various reasons for withholding that information, I have met both Fisher and Labovitch recently but will not disclose who made that particular statement. It does, in my opinion, illustrate the state of mind of the Otium Board collectively and that they are susceptible to the pressure being ramped up. As it was the only piece of the conversation that didn't come across as 'bullshit' - and that didn't fit with the rest of the arguments this Director was trying to spin - both myself and my fellow supporter were pretty convinced that we'd hit a vulnerability. Up to you and others whether you agree or not.
ccfctommy
Well-Known Member
But they don't have to...
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Let's try another angle.
What does the trust gain by adopting this resolution?
Conversely, what does it lose?
What does the trust gain by adopting this resolution?
Conversely, what does it lose?
skybluetom
New Member
What exactly are the Football League gonna do? The League have agreed to let them play there for 5 years, there is nothing the League can do. Even in the event they do act, are they going to force Sisu and the Council to agree a loan deal?
The Football League are unfit for purpose in many ways, they're not to blame for this though. Sisu put them over a barrel by demanding they rubber stamp in the Sixfields move or the club would be unable to fulfill it's opening day fixture less than 24 hours later.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just to be clear I do not think anyone should support the owners in their movement of the team to Sixfields. It is not about NOPM it is just simply wrong and I will never go there.
You can see it as a policy but if it is adopted then rightly members of the Trust will expect it to be acted upon. That will mean actions not words so is it just a policy? Will it really be just up to the Trust Board to deal with it? I have real reservations as to where this will all lead and how much pressure on SISU it will achieve but accept if approved then that is members wishes
One thing I have learnt about members groups is that there are plenty with an opinion or criticism but very very few who act and even less that achieve. But we shall see wont we
Questions
-Does the motion proposed stand or fall on its entirety? It would seem to as it is a single motion with no mention of taking the elements separately. So does it mean to vote for part of it you have to vote for all of it ?
- Part one refers to a complete supporters boycott of city matches at Sixfields - surely that must mean no one travels there not just no one goes in , it must mean also no one stands on the hill? Is that the intention?
You can see it as a policy but if it is adopted then rightly members of the Trust will expect it to be acted upon. That will mean actions not words so is it just a policy? Will it really be just up to the Trust Board to deal with it? I have real reservations as to where this will all lead and how much pressure on SISU it will achieve but accept if approved then that is members wishes
One thing I have learnt about members groups is that there are plenty with an opinion or criticism but very very few who act and even less that achieve. But we shall see wont we
Questions
-Does the motion proposed stand or fall on its entirety? It would seem to as it is a single motion with no mention of taking the elements separately. So does it mean to vote for part of it you have to vote for all of it ?
- Part one refers to a complete supporters boycott of city matches at Sixfields - surely that must mean no one travels there not just no one goes in , it must mean also no one stands on the hill? Is that the intention?
Last edited:
