Sky Blue Trust Secretive Meeting(s) with SISU (1 Viewer)

[Rationalizer]

In another thread it was stated that Trust leadership met with Joy and the details have been kept secret from Trust Members at the request of SISU.

There may be nothing to these meetings but as representatives of the members they should not be concealing information from the members they represent. They Trust should circulate to members:

• Details of the meeting date/time, attendees and duration.
• Document the minutes of the discussion

The meeting was held as you represent the membership and as such this information should be with the members. This fails to provide confidence in the leadership providing a communication between the members/fans and the owners and breaks the Trust constitution rules.

 

---

[ccfcmustang]

calling these trust members to the stand- how do you plead?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Why don't you turn up to the Trust meeting and discuss it there?

What are the Trust and SISU conspiring to do exactly?

#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth

 

[Otis]

In another thread it was stated that Trust leadership met with Joy and the details have been kept secret from Trust Members at the request of SISU.

There may be nothing to these meetings but as representatives of the members they should not be concealing information from the members they represent. They Trust should circulate to members:

• Details of the meeting date/time, attendees and duration.
• Document the minutes of the discussion

The meeting was held as you represent the membership and as such this information should be with the members. This fails to provide confidence in the leadership providing a communication between the members/fans and the owners and breaks the Trust constitution rules.

What are you worried about, that the Trust are going to give Sisu all our pounds?

 

[Godiva]

In another thread it was stated that Trust leadership met with Joy and the details have been kept secret from Trust Members at the request of SISU.

There may be nothing to these meetings but as representatives of the members they should not be concealing information from the members they represent. They Trust should circulate to members:

• Details of the meeting date/time, attendees and duration.
• Document the minutes of the discussion

The meeting was held as you represent the membership and as such this information should be with the members. This fails to provide confidence in the leadership providing a communication between the members/fans and the owners and breaks the Trust constitution rules.

The board has been elected as representatives and as such they have been given mandate to act on behalf of the Trust members.
They may not be in a position to reveal information at this point, but that is the nature of negotiations - they are kept private until concluded.

Your post indicate you don't trust the board - in that case your only option is to try to get elected members you do trust. Did you apply for a board position your self?

 

[The lost fan]

Sisu , using the old " divide & conquer " approach !!!!!!

 

[RFC]

In another thread it was stated that Trust leadership met with Joy and the details have been kept secret from Trust Members at the request of SISU.

There may be nothing to these meetings but as representatives of the members they should not be concealing information from the members they represent. They Trust should circulate to members:

• Details of the meeting date/time, attendees and duration.
• Document the minutes of the discussion

The meeting was held as you represent the membership and as such this information should be with the members. This fails to provide confidence in the leadership providing a communication between the members/fans and the owners and breaks the Trust constitution rules.

Sometimes it pays to trust those who lead by example.

I'm sure there's good reasoning behind this and all will be revealed at the right time, which is obviously not now. PUSB!

 

[Samo]

I agree with the OP, on a matter of principal.

 

[lamtara2006]

I think people need to get their heads around the distinction between 'Secretive' and 'Confidential'. The Trust have not hidden the fact that meetings have taken place with representatives of Sisu including Joy Seppala. It is entirely normal for the details of such meetings to remain confidential if required, for example if the other party will only attend a meeting if that is maintained. There is often good reason, eg that the matter to be discussed is commercially or politically sensitive.

As an active Trust Member, I am content to rely on the integrity of the Board Members to use their judgement to act in the best interests of the members and supporters of Coventry City as a whole.

 

[shmmeee]

Agree with OP completely. Should've come back to the members asking if they should accept the secrecy. More divide and conquer bullshit.

The Trusts job is to represent fans views. What possible reason could there be for agreeing to keep things secret from the members?

Regardless of what was said, a huge part that the trust plays in this nonsense is giving fans a voice and a seat at the table. This move just makes many feel more excluded and less part of the club.

Too many fans wanting to be the guy that fixed it. It's where Michael came unstuck too.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[Ian1779]

In another thread it was stated that Trust leadership met with Joy and the details have been kept secret from Trust Members at the request of SISU.

There may be nothing to these meetings but as representatives of the members they should not be concealing information from the members they represent. They Trust should circulate to members:

• Details of the meeting date/time, attendees and duration.
• Document the minutes of the discussion

The meeting was held as you represent the membership and as such this information should be with the members. This fails to provide confidence in the leadership providing a communication between the members/fans and the owners and breaks the Trust constitution rules.

This is a ridiculous statement. Why do some people feel the need to criticise attempts for the Trust to engage with the club? This ultimately is the primary reason for their existence to be the middle point between a football club and its fanbase.

I'm not a member of the Trust, but if I was I would expect the board members to act in the best interests of the organisation, and allow their judgement to share information when appropriate.

What is it that you find find more annoying? The fact that they haven't released the 'information' or that they met with Joy in the first place?

 

[dongonzalos]

I am happy that members of that board in the whole share my opinion.
I expect them to meet with SISU.
If in the process of that meeting SISU say to them. I am sorry but what we are about to tell you can't be discussed in the public domain.
I expect them to make a decision about that. Not automatically just tell us anyway

 

[shmmeee]

This is a ridiculous statement. Why do some people feel the need to criticise attempts for the Trust to engage with the club? This ultimately is the primary reason for their existence to be the middle point between a football club and its fanbase.

It's not a middle point if it's one way. How can members be sure their views were put across? How can members help the board or put suggestions forward without knowing what was said?

The confidentiality is there for one reason only: to start threads like this.

United we stand, divided we fall and all that.

This was a serious misstep (and not the first) and it always comes about by agreeing to keep the average fan in the dark.

Here's a better question: what good could possibly come from a secret meeting?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Each and every member are equal, even those representing the majority at meetings. Ergo, each and every member should be informed of the results of such a meeting. I'm not a member and as such do not expect to be told of outcomes of the meetings. Devide and conquer yet again, springs to mind.

 

[skybluebeduff]

Sometimes it pays to trust those who lead by example.

I'm sure there's good reasoning behind this and all will be revealed at the right time, which is obviously not now. PUSB!

I fail to see how you trust a company who have never lead by an example to it's customers?

 

[The Penguin]

I hate to collect splinters on this but I really can see both sides.

Were I a Trust member, I'd want to know everything that was discussed, as the board were meeting on my behalf, and I'd feel as though I deserve to know what's going on - after all, fans are stakeholders in the club as well.

However, I can also see that there may be matters discussed that require confidentiality, for whatever reason.

I would hasten to add though, that given the club's recently stated desire to be 'transparent' (though how many times have we heard that before), it's a bit rich to request/demand confidentiality in discussions with a significant supporters' representative body.

 

[Ian1779]

It's not a middle point if it's one way. How can members be sure their views were put across? How can members help the board or put suggestions forward without knowing what was said?

The confidentiality is there for one reason only: to start threads like this.

United we stand, divided we fall and all that.

This was a serious misstep (and not the first) and it always comes about by agreeing to keep the average fan in the dark.

Here's a better question: what good could possibly come from a secret meeting?

It's impossible to know the success of any meeting (secret or not) unless you know the purpose of it. I've been hoping for weeks that some secret meetings have been going on between SISU and ACL. In their example, doing something in private is going to be infinitely more effective than playing it out in the public domain.

If the dialogue between them was meaningful, and would ultimately result in something good happening, would it really be such an issue that confidentially was asked for, at least for a while? If it also means that their begins a relationship between the club and Trust again... it may be worth it long term.

People always have choices - if they are not happy with how their opinions are put across they can either stop being members, or elect someone that will do what they want.

Personally - I choose not to be a member. I still have to accept however that they are currently the biggest group representing our fan base, so they need to be an intrinsic link between the club and the fans.

 

[LB87ccfc]

Said this before and say it again.. the trust are in sisus pocket.. do not represent the real fans who despise what has happened and what is going on.

 

[sky blue john]

Lol !!
TRANSPARENCY.......

 

[will am i]

Why don't you turn up to the Trust meeting and discuss it there?

What are the Trust and SISU conspiring to do exactly?

#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth

The Trust are there to represent its members so should be transparent about what they are up to. I don't remember the being told when I signed up that I would have to attend meetings to find out what was going on. Isn't that the whole point of having representatives?

 

[RFC]

I fail to see how you trust a company who have never lead by an example to it's customers?

Making assumptions once again, the key word is "confidentiality" in all this and I don't have a problem with it.

Ps. Guess you trust those who drove CRFC from Coundon Road, the Sky Blues from Highfield Road (& iderectly from the Ricoh) and closed Livingstone Road swimming baths yesterday (was there) and are about to close the only Olympic size pool in the West Midlands?

 

[Astute]

Trust is a massive word for us.

There is no trust in SISU. There is no trust in meetings where nothing that is said comes out in the open. But what good would there be with everything being out in the open between them? I would be happy for them to discuss everything without shouting about what is said until the discussions are finished. There isn't much that the trust can do other than find out what it would take to bring our club home and then talk to CCC/ACL. And I can't see SISU and ACL having talks as things stand with the ongoing litigation having restarted.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Sometimes it pays to trust those who lead by example.

I'm sure there's good reasoning behind this and all will be revealed at the right time, which is obviously not now. PUSB!

Dude(assumed).. your trust is misplaced I fear.. time to recalibrate me thinks...ointlaugh:


http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...isu-vs-7353831

1) A £14.4million loan from Coventry City Council to the Ricoh Arena operating firm ACL in January 2013 was not unlawful state aid.
2) The judge could not say a rational private investor would not have made a similar loan and the council acted “well within the ambit extended to public authorities”.
3) Sisu sought to blame the club’s financial woes on ACL, but the judge said the club sold their right to revenues at the Ricoh Arena “for good consideration”. He also pointed out that when Sisu bought the club they had “full knowledge” of the lack of revenue rights and the contractual commitment to pay ACL £1.3m-a-year in rent.
4) The club’s outgoings on rent were less than ten per cent of the club’s overall expenditure in 2012.
5) The judge said the crisis in ACL was triggered by Sisu refusing to pay rent. He also said £500,000 taken from an escrow and £10,000 costs paid per match was “expenses” and not rent.
6) The judge said the withdrawal of rent was a deliberate strategy by Sisu to “distress ACL’s financial position, with a view to driving down the value of ACL and thus the price of a share in it, which they coveted.”
7) Sisu criticised a £14.4m loan to ACL, which they argued was a failing business. But the judge responded by pointing out Sisu had ploughed £50m into a “hopelessly loss-making football club” in the hope they could make profit by buying into the Arena. He also said Sisu and its investors had “written off” this money.
8) The £14.4m loan made to ACL by the council was likely more than the value of the company - but this was acceptable as it was a long term investment which would see the council make a return.
9) The judge dismissed Sisu’s argument that the council had put policy above financial sense was “misconceived” - pointing out that the council was “entitled - if not bound” to consider politics in its decision-making process.
10) Criticisms of council officers which suggested they had misled councillors ahead of the decision to make the £14.4m loan to ACL were “unfounded”.

 

[WiganSkyBlue]

Hmm - a lot of misunderstanding as to the difference between "secret" and "confidential".

At some point in the future the results of confidential meetings, if any have taken place, will be disclosed imo.

If the trust, of which I am a member, has resolved that in order to progress an issue, and there is none bigger than getting the team playing back in Coventry, and the way to progress said issue is to engage for the time being confidentially, then I say let them get on with it. I hope that they are seen as perhaps an honest broker between SISU and ACL and that this is the reason for confidentiality at the moment - could be wrong of course, but hope not.

I deal with issues where I have to take into account everyone's views on specific points to come to a conclusion and am forever reminding people who give a view that this does not mean getting their own way; individual views may be discounted for good reasons that may need explanation at a future point. Similarly here, a diverse organisation will inevitably be representing many points of view, but not all will be satisfied, especially if their individual standpoint is not expressed - such is the price of democracy.

 

[shmmeee]

Trust is a massive word for us.

There is no trust in SISU. There is no trust in meetings where nothing that is said comes out in the open. But what good would there be with everything being out in the open between them? I would be happy for them to discuss everything without shouting about what is said until the discussions are finished. There isn't much that the trust can do other than find out what it would take to bring our club home and then talk to CCC/ACL. And I can't see SISU and ACL having talks as things stand with the ongoing litigation having restarted.

What are they discussing though?

It can't be about coming back to the Ricoh because what the hell can the Trust do there?

This is the problem with keeping even the fact that there is a meeting hush hush. How can members support the board's decisions if they have no idea why they're even meeting?

 

[shmmeee]

Hmm - a lot of misunderstanding as to the difference between "secret" and "confidential".

At some point in the future the results of confidential meetings, if any have taken place, will be disclosed imo.

If the trust, of which I am a member, has resolved that in order to progress an issue, and there is none bigger than getting the team playing back in Coventry, and the way to progress said issue is to engage for the time being confidentially, then I say let them get on with it. I hope that they are seen as perhaps an honest broker between SISU and ACL and that this is the reason for confidentiality at the moment - could be wrong of course, but hope not.

I deal with issues where I have to take into account everyone's views on specific points to come to a conclusion and am forever reminding people who give a view that this does not mean getting their own way; individual views may be discounted for good reasons that may need explanation at a future point. Similarly here, a diverse organisation will inevitably be representing many points of view, but not all will be satisfied, especially if their individual standpoint is not expressed - such is the price of democracy.

"Secret" is about if anyone knew about them before hand or if they were published. "Confidential" is about if anything can be said afterwards.

This meeting meets both definitions.

And, seriously, what on earth do you think the Trust can do to get us home at this point? But that's the problem isn't it? We can't have this discussion because neither of us know what was being talked about.

 

[Ian1779]

When did this 'meeting' take place?

 

[shmmeee]

When did this 'meeting' take place?

Who knows? There's no report of it on the Trust website that I can find. It's not mentioned in the AGM minutes, though I guess that this:

A Member asked that the Trust Board should consider adopting a protocol whereby all Board members should be informed about any proposed external meetings.
The Chair agreed that the Board would consider that.

stemmed from that.

 

[Ian1779]

Who knows? There's no report of it on the Trust website that I can find. It's not mentioned in the AGM minutes, though I guess that this:



stemmed from that.

I wondered if it was pre or post Wednesdays protest...

 

[shmmeee]

I wondered if it was pre or post Wednesdays protest...

Definitely pre.

 

[Nick]

It was a few weeks ago wasn't it?

 

[hill83]

I'm in actual tears of rage here. Just booted my tv in. I'm shaking. I can't believe this. I want my pound back. Heads will roll.

 

[Godiva]

What are they discussing though?

It can't be about coming back to the Ricoh because what the hell can the Trust do there?

This is the problem with keeping even the fact that there is a meeting hush hush. How can members support the board's decisions if they have no idea why they're even meeting?

Hmmm - I seem to recall you are a teacher, is that correct?
If so, you know all about the principle of 'representative democracy'.
And you probably even know Edmund Burke and his view of RD.

Theorists such as Edmund Burke believe that part of the duty of a representative was not simply to communicate the wishes of the electorate but also to use their own judgement in the exercise of their powers, even if their views are not reflective of those of a majority of voters:

Anyway, I do believe the meeting is about a return to the Ricoh. Maybe the Trust is simply being informed?

 

[shmmeee]

Hmmm - I seem to recall you are a teacher, is that correct?
If so, you know all about the principle of 'representative democracy'.
And you probably even know Edmund Burke and his view of RD.



Anyway, I do believe the meeting is about a return to the Ricoh. Maybe the Trust is simply being informed?

I am a teacher (for now), and I do understand representative democracy, though I'm not sure how they're connected, I'm not a Citizenship teacher.

I'm not sure this applies to be honest, even if representative democracy is how the Trust was run, which it's not.

As for keeping the Trust informed, well that would require the Trust actually being informed of something wouldn't it? Or do you mean the Board?

Edit: uncalled for, am having a bad day.

 

[Godiva]

I am a teacher (for now), and I do understand representative democracy, though I'm not sure how they're connected, I'm not a Citizenship teacher.

I'm not sure this applies to be honest, even if representative democracy is how the Trust was run, which it's not.

As for keeping the Trust informed, well that would require the Trust actually being informed of something wouldn't it? Or do you mean the Board?

As the board represents the Trust, informing the board is informing the Trust.