One for Rob S and the Trust? (1 Viewer)

duffer · Jun 4, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
Well it's a question I didn't get a satisfactory answer to (or one that satisfied me anyway - of course me not reporting back a no answer got aload of shit ).

That doesn't devalue an attempt to open lines of dialogue though. In fact, the more reasonable the Trust appears, the more unreasonable SISU appear in return.

If you were leading a campaign for hearts and minds, the reasonable approach that's rebuffed would probably swing more against SISU than any confrontation.

As for representation being Haskell's idea, to be honest I've seen nothing to suggest it was anything but a cynical ploy to get people onside by paying lip service. Wasn't there an occasion where Hoffman was all for dialogue with fans' groups... but was going to cut any off who talked to SISU? (I had a quick glance for the thread as proof but I can't be bothered looking harder, might later if I can be arsed ) I don't like cheap words, and Haskell's whole period smacked as an atempt to maneuvre himself into a position of only bidder, in order to pick up a property development opportunity on the cheap (actually kind of annoyed SISU are peddling this line now, as it devalues me saying it, when I said it before them ffs!). Maybe I'm overly cynical but...

Haskell is in fact a fine example how just because fan representation is offered, doesn't automatically make them an ideal owner.

Now... unlikely we'd get the ideal owner (a group of rich fan-benefactors) but the near-ideal owner may offer fan engagement in a whole other way, that's equally appropriate.

Mornings NW. Agree entirely that the SBT should stay as reasonable as possible in it's dialogues with our owners (whomever they may be), regardless of provocation.

As for Haskell's motives in offering fan involvement, I don't think there's any evidence one way or another that he would have done it - but backtracking on the promise would not have given him particularly good PR. Similarly with Hoffman - until or unless he actually took the reins, it's very hard to judge what he might do.

As far as being better or worse owners than SISU though, the current track record suggests that you'd have to go a long way to find anyone who could have done a poorer job, imho.

shmmeee · Jun 4, 2014

I dunno about Haskell. It was all very quick and we got no real time to get details out of him, it wasn't your ordinary takeover bid thanks to the GS stuff, so it's understandable that putting together a detailed plan would've been difficult. That said, I'd like to know from anyone how you're going to make a basket case like this club work, because there's not many ways to do it without resorting to dodgy practices.

But over and above anything else, he was actually offering that which theTrust have stated since the beginning was their aim. Would you not meet someone like that? Bearing in mind that we did not have the benefit of hindsight and the ownership of the club was far from clear cut.

I don't think the Trust were particularly rabid, as you paint them, to be honest. It went sour when they refused (on member advice) not to help them win over fans for the ground share. Had they done that, they'd have immediately lost a large portion of the newly joined members. But I'll ask again, what exactly have the club changed with this new route? Or do you just have a fonder view because you personally have met them? For the vast majority it's the same rhetoric, the same inaction. And it's the vast majority that matter, not 25 of you in a conference room. Whether that's discussing a new stadium or having "intimate forums", if the lack of action remains the same, and your questions remain unanswered. What exactly was the point? Haven't you just neutered fan opinion for no reason?

Jack Griffin · Jun 4, 2014

Haskell is history, move on.

SkyblueBazza · Jun 4, 2014

blueflint said:
since when have sisu been good for us

There are some out there that think "careful what you wish for" i.e out of the frying pan - into the fire, & a handful that think they're good.
If you're questioning my stance - NOPM

PUSB

duffer · Jun 4, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Haskell is history, move on.

Indeed - in fact I'm coming to the conclusion that it's all history now, to a greater or lesser degree, and all of the parties have to start looking forwards rather than backwards if we're to get out of this mess.

Personally, I think that that means SISU start talking about a rental agreement, even if it's short term, and that the Council, ACL and Higgs start talking about what they want to at least share their interests in the Ricoh with the club, for the longer term. The JR has done no one any favours here, imho.

AndreasB · Jun 4, 2014

Im proud of our team at the moment thank you. I take it you are not?

bigfatronssba · Jun 4, 2014

This thread seems to demonstrate that if you say something generic that we all agree on like "sisu are not good for ccfc" then your accused of sounding like a broken record.

Say something none generic that not everyone agrees with and you get accused of being devisive

Can't win it would seem.

bigfatronssba · Jun 4, 2014

AndreasB said:
Im proud of our team at the moment thank you. I take it you are not?

Depends on what you class as proud.

If we're being honest our team is pretty rubbish aren't they?

Nick · Jun 4, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
This thread seems to demonstrate that if you say something generic that we all agree on like "sisu are not good for ccfc" then your accused of sounding like a broken record.

Say something none generic that not everyone agrees with and you get accused of being devisive

Can't win it would seem.

Surely you are a broken record if you say the same thing over and over and then use that line when somebody questions you about something different, this is how it goes.

"SISU are no good for CCFC and Billy blows goats"
"Billy doesn't blow goats"
"Oh, so you are saying SISU are good for CCFC?"

The Gentleman · Jun 4, 2014

Nick said:
Surely you are a broken record if you say the same thing over and over and then use that line when somebody questions you about something different, this is how it goes.

"SISU are no good for CCFC and Billy blows goats"
"Billy doesn't blow goats"
"Oh, so you are saying SISU are good for CCFC?"

Who's Billy?

Nick · Jun 4, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Who's Billy?

Allegedly a dirty bugger! If you disagree with me, you think SISU are good for CCFC.

AndreasB · Jun 4, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
Depends on what you class as proud.

If we're being honest our team is pretty rubbish aren't they?

No. But the support is.

The Gentleman · Jun 4, 2014

Nick said:
Allegedly a dirty bugger! If you disagree with me, you think SISU are good for CCFC.

Don't disagree at all, he sounds like a right laugh!

MichaelCCFC · Jun 4, 2014

bigfatronssba said:
This thread seems to demonstrate that if you say something generic that we all agree on like "sisu are not good for ccfc" then your accused of sounding like a broken record.

Say something none generic that not everyone agrees with and you get accused of being devisive

Can't win it would seem.

Spot on.

Except of course there's also Nick's 'is blue a colour' meltdown and today his diversion is goats. Each unto their own I suppose!

Nick · Jun 4, 2014

MichaelCCFC said:
Spot on.

Except of course there's also Nick's 'is blue a colour' meltdown and today his diversion is goats. Each unto their own I suppose!

Hardly a melt down was it?

So if you don't agree you must be saying SISU are good for the club, merely because I made a statement you agree with which means you must agree with everything I say and if not, I will just keep saying that statement at you.

Can you really not see that? Take a step back.

lordsummerisle · Jun 4, 2014

Nick said:
Hardly a melt down was it?

So if you don't agree you must be saying SISU are good for the club, merely because I made a statement you agree with which means you must agree with everything I say and if not, I will just keep saying that statement at you.

Can you really not see that? Take a step back.

Fucked if I know what it's about, all a bit Quantum or something for me.

torchomatic · Jun 4, 2014

No he can't. And all the Ego Stokers don't help.

Nick said:
Can you really not see that? Take a step back.

MichaelCCFC · Jun 4, 2014

Joking aside, reflecting on this thread I do wonder if the argument boils down to whether:

you see things as 'sisu aren't good for ccfc BUT' (and then choose from - what about the council and acl/a new owner could be worse/they are trying to engage with fans etc etc)

or

you see things as 'sisu aren't good for ccfc THEREFORE' (and then choose from - they can't be trusted with ownership of the ricoh/the new stadium is a diversion/even if the get the ricoh they would prioritise their own profit over investment in the team etc etc)

torchomatic · Jun 4, 2014

I don't think SISU are good for CCFC
I don't think ACL/CCC are good for CCFC
I don't think moving to the Ricoh was good for CCFC
Playing in Northampton is not good for CCFC

It wouldn't bother me if either side disappeared over night. If SISU stay and charge and return to the Ricoh as owners or renters then great, I'd still go.

It's still not as clear cut as you try to make out. Just because someone says one thing you seem to suggest they must have a certain fixed point of view.

"It ain't necessarily so."

MichaelCCFC said:
Joking aside, reflecting on this thread I do wonder if the argument boils down to whether:

you see things as 'sisu aren't good for ccfc BUT' (and then choose from - what about the council and acl/a new owner could be worse/they are trying to engage with fans etc etc)

or

you see things as 'sisu aren't good for ccfc THEREFORE' (and then choose from - they can't be trusted with ownership of the ricoh/the new stadium is a diversion/even if the get the ricoh they would prioritise their own profit over investment in the team etc etc)

MichaelCCFC · Jun 4, 2014

torchomatic said:
I don't think SISU are good for CCFC
I don't think ACL/CCC are good for CCFC
I don't think moving to the Ricoh was good for CCFC
Playing in Northampton is not good for Sixfields

It wouldn't bother me if either side disappeared over night. If SISU stay and charge and return to the Ricoh as owners or renters then great, I'd still go.

It's still not as clear cut as you try to make out. Just because someone says one thing you seem to suggest they must have a certain fixed point of view.

"It ain't necessarily so."

Not at all! some posters have a very fixed view but for me one of the positives of this forum is you can argue points through so as to try and understand different perspectives better - playing devil's advocate etc can be really helpful in trying to make sense of things. I get criticised on here for for being a broken record and changing my mind - can't be both surely!

fernandopartridge · Jun 4, 2014

The Gentleman said:
As said by the man who brings absolutely fuck all to this forum.

He's got a point

fernandopartridge · Jun 4, 2014

For once I agree with schmee. Until the blame game ends the solution game won't begin. The problem is that the warring parties appear unwilling to accept blame (perhaps due to the context of the JR but it's probably a bit simpler than that).

stupot07 · Jun 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
For once I agree with schmee. Until the blame game ends the solution game won't begin. The problem is that the warring parties appear unwilling to accept blame (perhaps due to the context of the JR but it's probably a bit simpler than that).

Very true.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

The Gentleman · Jun 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
For once I agree with schmee. Until the blame game ends the solution game won't begin. The problem is that the warring parties appear unwilling to accept blame (perhaps due to the context of the JR but it's probably a bit simpler than that).

Are you going to stop blaming the Council then

fernandopartridge · Jun 4, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Are you going to stop blaming the Council then

For the time being perhaps.

The Gentleman · Jun 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
For the time being perhaps.

In that case the CV1 patrol might let you into a city boozer, are you down for any of the world cup matches?

fernandopartridge · Jun 4, 2014

The Gentleman said:
In that case the CV1 patrol might let you into a city boozer, are you down for any of the world cup matches?

Not sure tbh mate. Certainly not the Italy game as I'm away. Hopefully England make it out of the group.
Fixtures out in a few weeks, Chesterfield would be a good away day!

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 4, 2014

duffer said:
As far as being better or worse owners than SISU though, the current track record suggests that you'd have to go a long way to find anyone who could have done a poorer job, imho.

I'd want the right replacement though.

After all, the anybody but GR approach was hardly a stunning success!

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 4, 2014

shmmeee said:
I dunno about Haskell. It was all very quick and we got no real time to get details out of him, it wasn't your ordinary takeover bid thanks to the GS stuff, so it's understandable that putting together a detailed plan would've been difficult. That said, I'd like to know from anyone how you're going to make a basket case like this club work, because there's not many ways to do it without resorting to dodgy practices.

But over and above anything else, he was actually offering that which theTrust have stated since the beginning was their aim. Would you not meet someone like that? Bearing in mind that we did not have the benefit of hindsight and the ownership of the club was far from clear cut.

I don't think the Trust were particularly rabid, as you paint them, to be honest. It went sour when they refused (on member advice) not to help them win over fans for the ground share. Had they done that, they'd have immediately lost a large portion of the newly joined members. But I'll ask again, what exactly have the club changed with this new route? Or do you just have a fonder view because you personally have met them? For the vast majority it's the same rhetoric, the same inaction. And it's the vast majority that matter, not 25 of you in a conference room. Whether that's discussing a new stadium or having "intimate forums", if the lack of action remains the same, and your questions remain unanswered. What exactly was the point? Haven't you just neutered fan opinion for no reason?

WHat a load of absolute bollocks.

The Gentleman · Jun 4, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
I'd want the right replacement though.

After all, the anybody but GR approach was hardly a stunning success!

Why would you want the right replacement, what the hell else would we all have to argue about on here!!

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 4, 2014

duffer said:
Personally, I think that that means SISU start talking about a rental agreement, even if it's short term, and that the Council, ACL and Higgs start talking about what they want to at least share their interests in the Ricoh with the club, for the longer term. The JR has done no one any favours here, imho.

Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Never has done, really.

I suppose the point of the JR is it may do favours from the club's POV, if it swings some public opinion away from the 'SISU must just give in' towards the 'well both sides need to move towards a middle ground'. That then, at least gives some motivation to that movement. As it stands, there is little.

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 4, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Why would you want the right replacement, what the hell else would we all have to argue about on here!!

Sure we could find something!

bigfatronssba · Jun 4, 2014

AndreasB said:
No. But the support is.

Well I suppose I must be greedy for having expectations higher than mid table 3rd tier.

As for the support, you
attend Sixfields. If you feel the support there is that bad why don't you get the songs going and get a bit of atmosphere in the place?

olderskyblue · Jun 4, 2014

Deleted member 5849 said:
WHat a load of absolute bollocks.

Is that a No then??

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 4, 2014

olderskyblue said:
Is that a No then??

It'd be a bit like suggesting everyone who's been to a new stadium meeting therefore believes a new stadium will happen.

Be a steaming pile of bollocks that, too.

One for Rob S and the Trust? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency