Sky Blue Trust Secretive Meeting(s) with SISU (2 Viewers)

Rationalizer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Personally I have no issue with this if it makes them talk and help in bringing the sky blues home.

BUT I must reiterate, the trust is talking on our behalf and should step cautiously when carrying out such confidential meetings. We as trust members would like to visibly see progress being made from such meetings and not them just fannying around and us getting sucked into there games of brinkmanship.

I do understand other fans fears of these secrecy or shall we say confidential meeting being used as a ploy by SISU to divide the fans for there own advantage but lets give this a chance and then we can judge. From what I see the trust are trying there best to get a resolution to this farce.

The Trust are a joke, and been up SISU's arse from day one, so finally people are beginning to come to terms with this.

I applaud their efforts etc, but too many secrets, not enough documented for my liking.

Will never make a difference, and never grabbed the bull by the horns when dealing with SISU and what has happened at OUR club.

If the meeting was a few weeks ago and it may have been about a return to the Ricoh, does that mean that SISU and ACL have potentially been in discussion for some time about this? In which case at that point neither of the conditions for return had been met. One has since, but the litigation aspect continues.

What I'm getting at is that it appears that the public statements and the private discussion from both parties could well be very different. So when Simon said the other day he didn't think the appeal was a barrier to a return, perhaps it starting to become clearer.

RFC said:

Ps. Guess you trust those who drove the Sky Blues from Highfield Road

Click to expand...

No, I don't really trust Mike McGinnity and Bryan Richardson.

If the trust had come out and said "we have met with sisu, but confidential discussions are currently taking place, so we cannot release the minutes until a later date" then I wouldn't have an issue.

The fact is the trust have to be as honest as possible to maintain credibility. I can think of no legitimate reason as to why the trust didn't announce the meeting.

If you withhold the truth from people they will create their own version of the truth.

RFC said:

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?

Click to expand...

Only one of those things is true (Livingstone Baths) rest is all rubbish as usual.

Your problem is you struggle understanding that just because someone agrees with an organisation on one issue, it doesn't mean they agree with them on everything. You want to support ccfc, which is fine. Unfortunately though you then support everything they do. Likewise you dislike the council for one issue so you then dislike them for everything.

You need to sort that out as it's making you look a bit simple.

If a "Union Rep" attended a meeting and let's face it, that is all these SBT reps are, didn't disclose to his/her "Union Members" what had been said in any meeting would soon find him/herself out of a job representing his/her co-workers.

This meeting didn't have any effect did it, no OTIUM talks with ACL and the appeal proceeds.

Jack Griffin said:

This meeting didn't have any effect did it, no OTIUM talks with ACL and the appeal proceeds.

Click to expand...

Didn't Simon Gilbert say quite clearly that the appeal wont get in the way of possible talks or current talks?

Kingokings204 said:

Didn't Simon Gilbert say quite clearly that the appeal wont get in the way of possible talks or current talks?

Click to expand...

Yep, he did now that money has been paid

What does Simon Gilbert know ? ( its a question )

The Penguin said:

No, I don't really trust Mike McGinnity and Bryan Richardson.

Click to expand...

No, CCC who refused planning permission for further redevelopment to expand the capacity of Highfield Road ( just for the record, this club owned a row of properties in Thacknall Street ). Please ask Uncle Joe or Geoffrey Robinson MP.

bigfatronssba said:

Only one of those things is true (Livingstone Baths) rest is all rubbish as usual.

Your problem is you struggle understanding that just because someone agrees with an organisation on one issue, it doesn't mean they agree with them on everything. You want to support ccfc, which is fine. Unfortunately though you then support everything they do. Likewise you dislike the council for one issue so you then dislike them for everything.

You need to sort that out as it's making you look a bit simple.

Click to expand...

If you look at CCC's record over the years and think it's good, maybe it's you who need help. I'll stick with what I know and the facts!

Nick said:

Yep, he did now that money has been paid

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. I do understand about the appeal isn't ideal to still go on when it seems pointless for everyone but ACL are only going to benefit and the ccc if ccfc move back in so yes it isn't ideal if the appeal stands but it seems a hopeless appeal and can only benefit everyone if ccfc move back asap.

I distinctly remember the ridicule brought on to the original Sky Blue Trust for lack of dialogue , progress and effort - now this has been reversed and the current SBT talking to the owners and officials secretive or not is clearly what we want, and is a massive step forward surely ??

BackRoomRummermill said:

What does Simon Gilbert know ? ( its a question )

Click to expand...

Think he's young man, learning his trade and asking some people the right 'probing' questions and occasionally getting positive answers.

Nick said:

Yep, he did now that money has been paid

Click to expand...

Then why was it a stipulation in the first place if it didn't matter and they only wanted the money paid? Doesn't make sense??

WM

Sky Blue Kid said:

If a "Union Rep" attended a meeting and let's face it, that is all these SBT reps are, didn't disclose to his/her "Union Members" what had been said in any meeting would soon find him/herself out of a job representing his/her co-workers.

Click to expand...

incorrect, if there was solid news to report back then they are obliged to do so however if they are in talks with the company then they have to keep this confidential rather than spout unagreed outcomes without any substance.

RFC said:

If you look at CCC's record over the years and think it's good, maybe it's you who need help. I'll stick with what I know and the facts!

Click to expand...

So you've just confirmed my point, thank you.

LB87ccfc said:

The Trust are a joke, and been up SISU's arse from day one, so finally people are beginning to come to terms with this.

I applaud their efforts etc, but too many secrets, not enough documented for my liking.

Will never make a difference, and never grabbed the bull by the horns when dealing with SISU and what has happened at OUR club.

Click to expand...

The trust 'are a joke' but you 'applaud their efforts' ?! Do you hear voices LB?!?!

WM

RFC said:

No, CCC who refused planning permission for further redevelopment to expand the capacity of Highfield Road ( just for the record, this club owned a row of properties in Thacknall Street ). Please ask Uncle Joe or Geoffrey Robinson MP.

Click to expand...

The local areas infrastructure couldn't support HR as it was. How much property the club owned was immaterial.

As usual, you're posting nonsense off half knowledge of a situation.

bigfatronssba said:

If the trust had come out and said "we have met with sisu, but confidential discussions are currently taking place, so we cannot release the minutes until a later date" then I wouldn't have an issue.

The fact is the trust have to be as honest as possible to maintain credibility. I can think of no legitimate reason as to why the trust didn't announce the meeting.

If you withhold the truth from people they will create their own version of the truth.

Click to expand...

Totally agree on this one ron, its more about how they have gone about this which has raised suspicion. I am a member but actually expect them to be in talks with SISU etc to try and find some common ground. We all have one objective and that is to get us back into Cov and to the Ricoh. They can have as many meetings as they want to get to this conclusion or a final outcome stating 'we have tried but SISU and ACL cannot agree on this basis...........'. I do not expect a blow by blow account which would ultimately cause more confusion and false conclusions.

RFC said:

No, CCC who refused planning permission for further redevelopment to expand the capacity of Highfield Road ( just for the record, this club owned a row of properties in Thacknall Street ). Please ask Uncle Joe or Geoffrey Robinson MP.

Click to expand...

There weren't any properties in thackhall st.

Sky Blue Kid said:

If a "Union Rep" attended a meeting and let's face it, that is all these SBT reps are, didn't disclose to his/her "Union Members" what had been said in any meeting would soon find him/herself out of a job representing his/her co-workers.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Union reps often attend meetings where the subject matter is confidential. I know this from personal experience.

#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth

bigfatronssba said:

If the trust had come out and said "we have met with sisu, but confidential discussions are currently taking place, so we cannot release the minutes until a later date" then I wouldn't have an issue.

The fact is the trust have to be as honest as possible to maintain credibility. I can think of no legitimate reason as to why the trust didn't announce the meeting.

If you withhold the truth from people they will create their own version of the truth.

Click to expand...

I'd say however (and yes, MMM and I did have this chat before, so not doing it again ) nothing was actually hidden, the information was actively volunteered they'd had a meeting to those who were in the room so I'd put it down as an oversight rather than anything malevolant. Personally I find it a non-issue and wasn't surprised it wasn't noted and, tbh, I'd rather club meets trust (even if club spouts a load of hot air) is the default, rather than news! But OK, in an attempt to be open minded I could see MMM's point Nonetheless, Jan did answer the query swiftly, so it's not like there was any covering up being done, is there.

As for the accusation of 'in SISU's pocket' then, well, there's a distinction between talking to people and condoning their actions...

Now in a wider sense.

As for the seeking fame accusation however... if you wanted the fame you'd be shouting you were having talks to get the club back from the rooftops

The gameplaying annoys me, tbh. I know everybody comes from a certain perspective, and I know I've been critical of the trust in the past so it's swings and roundabouts, can't please everybody. As it's only my impressions from a distance I won't name names but... there's at least one current (ex?) Trust board member I'm slightly concerned has been treated a little shabbily, but they've maintained their silence, which shows class and does them great credit. A couple of others however...

If trust board members choose to speak to, say, Elliott, Hoffman, SISU... whoever, then I for one am not really bothered. The Trust getting information off the protagonists seems an eminently sensible thing to do. It only becomes an issue if those talks then end up with the Trust becoming partial in any way... or sychophantic and blowing smoke up peoples' arse. Given the protest on Wednesday was sanctioned by the Trust, given the Trust chair was there and leading it... given other Trust board members were organising it and handing out posters, it's safe to say that's not the act of people who have been corrupted by Joy's mind control techniques and now slavishly follow her every will.

If, however, they have the opportunity to keep lines of communication with the club open, they would be crazy not to do it.

shmmeee said:

The local areas infrastructure couldn't support HR as it was. How much property the club owned was immaterial.

As usual, you're posting nonsense off half knowledge of a situation.

Click to expand...

Have to agree with you. The only thing the council had any impact on was the fact Foleshill was chosen as a site in the first place.
HR was never likely to get permission to expand due to the infrastructure problems it had. Not that it really needed to anyway!
The owners of the club at the time wanted to sell the land as it made some people very rich.

#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth

@NW: Are lines of communication open if nothing can be repeated?

Honest question. That seems to be the counterpoint: opening communication is important. But if the membership aren't involved in the communication, how is this any different to the small "forums" held before?

The fans, en masse, deserve to be involved, that (for me at least) was the point of joining a collective?

I hope none of your post was aimed at me. I've always been very clear that I speak for myself and myself alone. I've not been happy with the lack of information on these kinds of things before and I took my time joining the Trust because I'm suspicious of anyone claiming to represent me.

Besides, the main point isn't about keeping info confidential as some seem desperate to represent it. It's about not volunteering, let alone publicising, the fact the meeting took/was taking place and the impact this has on the members trust and the overall legitamacy of the Trust as a fans representative group.

shmmeee said:

@NW: Are lines of communication open if nothing can be repeated?

Click to expand...

Yes, because it's a means to an end.

We could use all kinds of war and politics analogies after all

NW Post #60 - spot on!

If anything is of a confidential or delicate nature, then nothing at all should be brought to the fore or spoken about it. Why should a "Select Few" (SBT reps) be privvy in knowing something that their peers, whom they represent, are not? This is my point!

shmmeee said:

The local areas infrastructure couldn't support HR as it was. How much property the club owned was immaterial.

As usual, you're posting nonsense off half knowledge of a situation.

Click to expand...

So you basically agree with RFC that the council wanted the club out as it didn't support the local infrastructure?

Sky Blue Kid said:

If anything is of a confidential or delicate nature, then nothing at all should be brought to the fore or spoken about it. Why should a "Select Few" (SBT reps) be privvy in knowing something that their peers, whom they represent, are not? This is my point!

Click to expand...

because they were chosen to represent the trust and therefore put into that position of trust.

Deleted member 5849 said:

...............given other Trust board members were organising it and handing out posters, it's safe to say that's not the act of people who have been corrupted by Joy's mind control techniques and now slavishly follow her every will......................

Click to expand...

Just read the highlighted bit as ........"slavishly following her evil will"

Had to do a double take

Been in front of a computer screen all morning - must take a break now

WiganSkyBlue said:

Just read the highlighted bit as ........"slavishly following her evil will"

Had to do a double take

Been in front of a computer screen all morning - must take a break now

Click to expand...

Both would make the same point in this context

Deleted member 5849 said:

I'd say however (and yes, MMM and I did have this chat before, so not doing it again ) nothing was actually hidden, the information was actively volunteered they'd had a meeting to those who were in the room so I'd put it down as an oversight rather than anything malevolant. Personally I find it a non-issue and wasn't surprised it wasn't noted and, tbh, I'd rather club meets trust (even if club spouts a load of hot air) is the default, rather than news! But OK, in an attempt to be open minded I could see MMM's point Nonetheless, Jan did answer the query swiftly, so it's not like there was any covering up being done, is there.

As for the accusation of 'in SISU's pocket' then, well, there's a distinction between talking to people and condoning their actions.

Click to expand...

Not going to go over that we've discussed before. I'm still baffled by it all. At a time SISU needs every bit of 'good' PR they can lay their hands on, why not acknowledge that contact with an entity representing the fans is on-going, although it's progress best kept under wraps?

I would have said for clarity of communication to the fans represented by the Trust; a joint-statement to announce that discussions are on-going, albeit confidential would have suited both parties.

I don't see it as surreptitious by the Trust; just can't understand why SISU would wish to make any such meetings clandestine?!? Any idea as to the motivation from SISU's side?