Interesting Trust Action (1 Viewer)

[CJ_covblaze]

His twitter feed is full of anti sisu rants. Also of course the famous video with Cains and the applause and handshake

And it is also full of anti Wasps rants. What’s wrong with either? For what it’s worth I had no problem with handshakes that day. It was the correct way if doing things. As far as I’m concerned everyone is their own man/woman. However I was embarrassed and angry at the round of applause. It was pathetic and unnecessary.

 

---

[NorthernWisdom]

Lionel goes to all the meetings doesn’t he?

He does. I had a... 'healthy debate' with him at a meeting.

That being said, nothing stopping anybody going to all the meetings. Nor should there be, really.

 

[Grendel]

What a Trust should never be, however, is club lapdog. Criticism is entirely appropriate. The method of criticism needs work, however.

I don’t think inviting nick Eastwood to meetings and certain ex trust hierarchy gloating about great atmosphere at wasps and then going to games is the way forward - also Cj admitted he’d never support a boycott of wasps but sat on a trust board that supported a boycott of Northampton

Sorry not good enough

 

[CJ_covblaze]

According to the Trust website there are only 5 currently on the board:

• Dave Eyles (Chair)
• Rachel Brown
• Andrew Fletcher
• CJ Joiner
• Bruce Walker

To be honest, there's only really CJ and Dave I'm aware of from those.

Nigel Lawrence should be on there too.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I don’t think inviting nick Eastwood to meetings and certain ex trust hierarchy gloating about great atmosphere at wasps and then going to games is the way forward - also Cj admitted he’d never support a boycott of wasps but sat on a trust board that supported a boycott of Northampton

Sorry not good enough

I agree. It shouldn't veer the other way either, however.

Challenge is entirely appropriate, and there's been plenty to challenge over the past few years!

There's a happy ground of constructive criticism, which is fair enough.

 

[mark82]

Trusts and supporters clubs are important for different reasons and should be seen very differently. I wouldn’t want a supporters club to question the club on anything. They’re there to hold events to bring the club and fans together. Trusts are there to professionally question when needed and to have something in place should the worse happens. The rest of the time you shouldn’t really hear from them. As well as those you’ve protest groups when things aren’t doing so well. The problem our fan base had for so many years was the lack of a protest group and supporters club that was open to everyone locally. Before L&W and N&B (both have done a great job btw) the only two SCs in Coventry and the surrounding area was the JSBs and Diamond Club which are age specific. Things were also going very badly and there was no real protest group. We had to do all 3 jobs. We held events with club personal such as players, managers and directors. Ran coaches. Held big demonstrations. Plus all the stuff Trusts should be concentrating on. There is only so many keys on a piano and we were playing all of them at the same time when we should’ve just been concentrating on playing the single chord. We were never going to succeed with that mix.

Yes, but the club don't see them as any different or more important than any of the others, and that is in large part because they've set their stall out against the club rather than working with them. When one of the main aims is to get supporter representation at board level, pissing them off rather than having constructive dialogue is probably the wrong way to go about it. The Trust made a decision long ago to work against the club rather than with them.

 

[Grendel]

I agree. It shouldn't veer the other way either, however.

Challenge is entirely appropriate, and there's been plenty to challenge over the past few years!

There's a happy ground of constructive criticism, which is fair enough.

There is but they all have to go first - the Haskell incident and the constant sucking up to Hoffman is embarrassing

 

[mark82]

What a Trust should never be, however, is club lapdog. Criticism is entirely appropriate. The method of criticism needs work, however.

Completely agree.

 

[Grendel]

Yes, but the club don't see them as any different or more important than any of the others, and that is in large part because they've set their stall out against the club rather than working with them. When one of the main aims is to get supporter representation at board level, pissing them off rather than having constructive dialogue is probably the wrong way to go about it. The Trust made a decision long ago to work against the club rather than with them.

Board representation is a bad idea

 

[CJ_covblaze]

I don’t think inviting nick Eastwood to meetings and certain ex trust hierarchy gloating about great atmosphere at wasps and then going to games is the way forward - also Cj admitted he’d never support a boycott of wasps but sat on a trust board that supported a boycott of Northampton

Sorry not good enough

What are you talking about? Holding meetings with reps of the organisations involved in the current situation is not a bad thing at all. The Trust have never supported a boycott of Northampton, Wasps or anywhere else. I certainly don’t have the right to tell you not to attend a sporting fixture. Nobody does aside from the authorities.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

He does. I had a... 'healthy debate' with him at a meeting.

That being said, nothing stopping anybody going to all the meetings. Nor should there be, really.

A supporters club in Coventry found that to their cost.

 

[mark82]

Board representation is a bad idea

I'd be interested to hear why?

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Board representation is a bad idea

Why? You’re a passionate supporter of the club. Why couldn’t it be you if you’re a member of the Trust?

 

[CJ_covblaze]

I agree. It shouldn't veer the other way either, however.

Challenge is entirely appropriate, and there's been plenty to challenge over the past few years!

There's a happy ground of constructive criticism, which is fair enough.

Spot on. Every club needs organisations offering support. The thing they also need is accountability. SCs are not who should do the second one. They can’t stamp their feet and shout one minute and expect the manager to turn up to their HQ the next.

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

I don’t think inviting nick Eastwood to meetings and certain ex trust hierarchy gloating about great atmosphere at wasps and then going to games is the way forward - also Cj admitted he’d never support a boycott of wasps but sat on a trust board that supported a boycott of Northampton

Sorry not good enough

Whilst agreeing with Grendel on the premise that the comments weren’t helpful I would suggest they were the comments of individuals rather than the view of the trust.
The trust should follow the articles of association and interact with its membership and encourage all fans of the club to participate and not create a divide that seems to have been in place for the best part of a decade.

 

[Grendel]

I'd be interested to hear why?

It creates an ego - the reason the trust is the embarrassing shambles that it is is because it went on a chase for a buffoon as that’s what he promised

Workers on board meetings was a thing started by the labour government in the seventies and it failed

it’s an exercise of self indulgence for the trust and a pretence by the club of actual engagement - also there are issues of confidentiality so any matters of real importance would be disclosure bound

Frankly the trust fell over when it sucked up to wasps.

A trust that protested against moving a club away from its home and at the same time being played and used by a sports club that er moved from its home

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

It was the lack of questioning of Wasps that did it for me. Where was the public campaigns? Drop the indemnity or else encourage a boycott. You don’t have to demand it - but encourage it.

 

[Nick]

Was it ever said who it was from supporters direct working with the council's pr company?

 

[mark82]

It creates an ego - the reason the trust is the embarrassing shambles that it is is because it went on a chase for a buffoon as that’s what he promised

Workers on board meetings was a thing started by the labour government in the seventies and it failed

it’s an exercise of self indulgence for the trust and a pretence by the club of actual engagement - also there are issues of confidentiality so any matters of real importance would be disclosure bound

Frankly the trust fell over when it sucked up to wasps.

A trust that protested against moving a club away from its home and at the same time being played and used by a sports club that er moved from its home

Seems more issues with the trust than with actual board representation.

Personal opinion is there are ways it can be done well/properly where it can have significant benefits. There are about 20 EFL clubs that currently have supporter board representation I believe.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Workers on board meetings was a thing started by the labour government in the seventies and it failed

One of the most vital stakeholders of the organisation yet should get no voice at a senior level. Yes, there is the issue that often those that go for those kind of things are either doing it for the ego and contacts or to just be a pain in the arse but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Certainly no worse than those that get on the board because of who they know. There was a company that appointed a Lord to the board because they thought it'd look impressive. The Lord in question was 9 months old - think he was more worthwhile for a place on the board than someone who works at the company every day and knows what it's like?

Another thing from the right wing capitalist handbook G has swallowed whole without question.

 

[Woolly68]

Seems more issues with the trust than with actual board representation.

Personal opinion is there are ways it can be done well/properly where it can have significant benefits. There are about 20 EFL clubs that currently have supporter board representation I believe.

I know this is at the other end of the extremities but the ECFC Trust role in regards to how the Club is run (see link). No secrets here. This info is publicly available on the Trust website. I’m not suggesting this would happen at Coventry but with enough Trust members (Club supporters) and an effective Group of Trustees it might mean you are closer to having a say or input into some decision making, or at least getting greater transparency when it comes to how your/our Club is run.
https://www.weownexetercityfc.co.uk/how-the-club-is-run

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Was it ever said who it was from supporters direct working with the council's pr company?

Did you email and ask? If so what was said?

 

[NortonSkyBlue]

One of the most vital stakeholders of the organisation yet should get no voice at a senior level. Yes, there is the issue that often those that go for those kind of things are either doing it for the ego and contacts or to just be a pain in the arse but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Certainly no worse than those that get on the board because of who they know. There was a company that appointed a Lord to the board because they thought it'd look impressive. The Lord in question was 9 months old - think he was more worthwhile for a place on the board than someone who works at the company every day and knows what it's like?

Another thing from the right wing capitalist handbook G has swallowed whole without question.

I am sure that you are a sensible person. Surely you know there is corporate governance involved in being a director of a company? So no, a 9 month old Lord was not on a board. Swallowed from the socialist handbook?

 

[Nick]

Did you email and ask? If so what was said?

Email who? A court?

Let's not try the dumb act. It never works, does it?

It's the snidey stuff that's never helped.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I am sure that you are a sensible person. Surely you know there is corporate governance involved in being a director of a company? So no, a 9 month old Lord was not on a board. Swallowed from the socialist handbook?

Nope. Taken directly from my company law lectures at uni. It was an old case but I brought it up as an example of how you could have far more stupid appointments to the board than someone who actually works in the company and knows what it's like. There are plenty of appointments of people on boards that have no experience in the industry at all.

 

[Grendel]

Nope. Taken directly from my company law lectures at uni. It was an old case but I brought it up as an example of how you could have far more stupid appointments to the board than someone who actually works in the company and knows what it's like. There are plenty of appointments of people on boards that have no experience in the industry at all.

Which company was he on the board?

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Email who? A court?

Let's not try the dumb act. It never works, does it?

It's the snidey stuff that's never helped.

SD

 

[Nick]

SD

Ah you think they will say then?

Who is it that are now? Know anybody on the board?

 

[CJ_covblaze]

Ah you think they will say then?

Who is it that are now? Know anybody on the board?

They could be subject to FOIs so why not put one in? I’m not sure how it’s relevant but I know plenty of the committee and board. They run the fans embassy when England play. They’re generally quite approachable.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Which company was he on the board?

I can't remember as the lectures were 20 years ago. Couldn't tell you the name of the Lord either. I just remember it was about a 9 month old appointed to the board purely because the company in question wanted the prestige of a 'Lord on the Board' and it came before the court because of the issue of governance and how could a 9 month old be suitable for such a position and as I say it was a long time ago but I believe the court allowed the appointment.

 

[Nick]

They could be subject to FOIs so why not put one in? I’m not sure how it’s relevant but I know plenty of the committee and board. They run the fans embassy when England play. They’re generally quite approachable.

And they are going to reveal their dealings with a council pr company?

Have a day off.

 

[CJ_covblaze]

And they are going to reveal their dealings with a council pr company?

Have a day off.

They are rare and today is one of them.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Exeter Trust working for and with the Club.
Massive difference to that of the Sky Blues Trust.

yep that’s the sad realisation that I’ve come to