Sky Blue Trust Secretive Meeting(s) with SISU (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rationalizer
- Start date
- Status
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Yes, saying nothing and now claiming you knew all along Rob ? Don't be surprised if some don't believe it.
Rationalizer
New Member
I agree.
I do not see how the Sky Blue Trust can justify their stance as they have broken there own constitution rules, specifically rule 111.1
If they do not follow their own constitution then they cannot be trusted.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Rule 111
The Society shall ensure that minutes are kept of all
111.1 proceedings of meetings of the society
So what exactly was the breach of this specific rule?
The Society shall ensure that minutes are kept of all
111.1 proceedings of meetings of the society
So what exactly was the breach of this specific rule?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
So does everyone hate ACL now because they've had "secret meetings" with SISU? Jeez, some people.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Two easy points here...
1. What's the point of me wasting my time talking about meetings or whatever to people such as yourself who just don't want to believe me anyway?; &
2. I preempted this exact situation by commenting here. (Nobody seemed to have worked out the actual reason TF was looking a bit dishevelled: he'd been in negotiations.)
There's a reason people like you get offended at not being able to get the information they want from people. You don't have the ability to get it. Rather than take potshots at me/GCBTTR and make demands, why not try a more gentle approach and ask nicely? I'm not asking to have my arse kissed or anything like that but just some basic civility will get you a lot more than you're getting at the moment. Also, rather than calling me out in a public thread, why not drop me a PM first? Your current approach just makes it look like you are trying to score invisible internet points off me rather than get actual information.
Rationalizer
New Member
There was a meeting of the society, with a third party, and minutes were not kept. If minutes were kept then they were not circulated, although not circulating is not a breach of the rule.
Irrelevant of the rules, I would have thought the SBT have an obligation to communicate to the members.
Nick
Administrator
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Feel free to take the minutes when you are voted on the committee?
There are still 4 places to fill we are waiting...
There are still 4 places to fill we are waiting...
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
So where were you when we were fighting this struggle, when all the shit was flying around? :thinking about:
Easy to spout off now that you want electing now it is all calmer.
Typical.......
Easy to spout off now that you want electing now it is all calmer.
Typical.......
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
And how do you know minutes were not kept or a report made to the Board?
So now it isn't a breach of the rules or the constitution but in your opinion an obligation to report what was said. So it isn't actually breaking rules or being untrustworthy as has been suggested in this thread
People seem to think that the board didn't consider any of this.
The Board on this occasion decided that the best way forward at a sensitive time was not to mention the meeting. Perhaps playing PR games with the parties concerned was less important than putting pressure on the decision maker face to face to bring the club back.
Last edited:
Rationalizer
New Member
I don't know if minutes were kept which is why I placed the caveat in the comment. There is a possibility or rules being broken and I think there was an obligation to state that meetings were taking place which is one of the reasons for the existence of the trust and should continue.
I think publicising an on-going discussion with SISU would have encouraged members rather than being kept in the dark.
People do not know what the board considered, maybe there are other important board discussions that are not minuted.
My comments are not to attack the Trust, just to have confidence in them and their actions.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Rob
2 easy points here
1) you haven't posted about the meeting to anybody on here, so I assume you think nobody believes you?
2) I have owned (and still do), and managed, quite a few business' in my lifetime, and have been in many many meetings discussing many important issues that have gone to the wire over days and weeks. I have never let my appearance be affected by them, ever. That's a complete cop out, especially as it seems Waggot was the main guy in them? Referring back to a previous post that said nothing is supposed to substantiate your claim that you knew something in advance? bollocks mate. (I'm not saying you weren't "in the know")
Seriously, I don't get offended if I can't get information, I just wonder why it isn't forthcoming. To suggest "I don't have the ability to get it" is insulting, and offensive, and extremely wide of the mark. However, anyone who actually got offended by that sort of comment on here, should give up on forums.
I thought i had been quite civil really, just asking you quite a few times for feedback from your 6 hour meeting with Joy a couple of months ago.
Call you out? a bit dramatic that, especially as it was you who had mentioned the meeting on, let me see, yes, a public thread...
Internet points? LOL As if I could give a fook about whatever they are
Seriously, you have made yourself look a bit foolish here.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
There is nothing in the constitution about keeping minutes of meetings with 3rd parties.
#CarlBakerDay #ClivePlattWeek #JohnGayleMonth
Rob S
Well-Known Member
You're letting your lack of web experience show here which is pretty funny but nothing too serious.* I'm sorry if you didn't intend to sound like you did but to me it read like you were having a go rather than being reasonable. There's been a couple of people having a pop recently based on either complete lies or just stuff they've made up in their heads and it's got a bit tedious, especially as I've not really been able to say too much about what's been going on until now. If you unfairly got caught in my crossfire here, I apologise.
There's a bit more info in this statement we released earlier.
* In internet parlance, calling someone out isn't really a dramatic thing and invisible internet points are exactly what they sound like; nothing worth giving a stuff about as they don't exist, that's the joke.
Rationalizer
New Member
What statement?
Who is "we"?
Not having a "go" (as you call it), these are genuine questions as you say there is more info in the statement.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
FFS Nick. Lock this thread.
It must be bad if I'm asking
It must be bad if I'm asking
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
What rules were broken?
Again you seek to imply wrong doing by suggesting other important board discussions are not minuted - it hasn't even been proven that any minutes are missing from meetings, including any from a meeting with Seppala. We have already established that not publishing to members doesn't actually break the rules or constitution.
At what level do you cease to require this "transparency".
If a member of the Board has a detailed lengthy telephone conversation with one of the parties involved should that be reported to members?
If email correspondence is exchanged should that be sent out every time to the members?
If an agreed minutes or press release has not been put together do you publish anyway and hang the consequences? The professional thing to do is to agree minutes between parties if not agreed then they carry little weight and should not be put out.
Are we talking a word for word documentation or will a précis do?
If part of the purpose (and stated aim)of the trust is to have dialogue with the club and its owners why does the Board require members permission to do so every time such discussions take place?
Had mention of the meeting been made what would the reaction on here, in the press etc have been? at a sensitive time when the Trust was doing all it could to get the two sides talking.
Whilst there is an ideal there are times when reality has to step in. That's not being eliteist or secretive or dishonest or egotistical - the important thing wasn't that the Trust talked to SISU, Fisher, Seppala, ACL, Council etc...... it was that JS/TF/SISU picked up the phone and talked to ACL nothing else in the scheme of things. It mattered because the one thing above all that the fans and Trust members wanted was a return by CCFC to the Ricoh, that could not and should not have been jeopardised, not some ideal of total transparency which apparently falls down because one meeting was not reported at the start of July but became apparent at the AGM 21/07/14 then became an issue on here in August
The implication of the title of this thread is that secretive meetings were being held with SISU as if the Board was complicit in some wrong doing or conspiracy against its own members interests. You might not have meant that in your OP but others have clearly said as much. That has done a great dis-service to a group of very good honest and well meaning people whose prime objective was the return of our club to Coventry - they are not, as some would have it, on an ego trip of self promotion far from it.
There is an all too easy and wrong acceptance by too many that the Board do not ask the hard questions, do not understand what is going on, are not prepared to keep people informed when they can, are not prepared to tell the various parties involved to their face how it is and how the members feel or need. In my experience this is an acceptance well wide of the mark. As with many committees and boards it is not surprising if they (the Board) ask why bother.
As others have suggested if people do not like how things are done, get elected to the Board and change it. Don't think they will find it quite what they are expecting though, and certainly not as easy as some seem to suggest
Again you seek to imply wrong doing by suggesting other important board discussions are not minuted - it hasn't even been proven that any minutes are missing from meetings, including any from a meeting with Seppala. We have already established that not publishing to members doesn't actually break the rules or constitution.
At what level do you cease to require this "transparency".
If a member of the Board has a detailed lengthy telephone conversation with one of the parties involved should that be reported to members?
If email correspondence is exchanged should that be sent out every time to the members?
If an agreed minutes or press release has not been put together do you publish anyway and hang the consequences? The professional thing to do is to agree minutes between parties if not agreed then they carry little weight and should not be put out.
Are we talking a word for word documentation or will a précis do?
If part of the purpose (and stated aim)of the trust is to have dialogue with the club and its owners why does the Board require members permission to do so every time such discussions take place?
Had mention of the meeting been made what would the reaction on here, in the press etc have been? at a sensitive time when the Trust was doing all it could to get the two sides talking.
Whilst there is an ideal there are times when reality has to step in. That's not being eliteist or secretive or dishonest or egotistical - the important thing wasn't that the Trust talked to SISU, Fisher, Seppala, ACL, Council etc...... it was that JS/TF/SISU picked up the phone and talked to ACL nothing else in the scheme of things. It mattered because the one thing above all that the fans and Trust members wanted was a return by CCFC to the Ricoh, that could not and should not have been jeopardised, not some ideal of total transparency which apparently falls down because one meeting was not reported at the start of July but became apparent at the AGM 21/07/14 then became an issue on here in August
The implication of the title of this thread is that secretive meetings were being held with SISU as if the Board was complicit in some wrong doing or conspiracy against its own members interests. You might not have meant that in your OP but others have clearly said as much. That has done a great dis-service to a group of very good honest and well meaning people whose prime objective was the return of our club to Coventry - they are not, as some would have it, on an ego trip of self promotion far from it.
There is an all too easy and wrong acceptance by too many that the Board do not ask the hard questions, do not understand what is going on, are not prepared to keep people informed when they can, are not prepared to tell the various parties involved to their face how it is and how the members feel or need. In my experience this is an acceptance well wide of the mark. As with many committees and boards it is not surprising if they (the Board) ask why bother.
As others have suggested if people do not like how things are done, get elected to the Board and change it. Don't think they will find it quite what they are expecting though, and certainly not as easy as some seem to suggest
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
We are back at the Ricoh FFS
Lets smile for one if the fees times you can as a Cov fan
Lets smile for one if the fees times you can as a Cov fan
Rob S
Well-Known Member
Click on the link (the blue text that says There's a bit more info in this statement we released earlier.) and all will be magically revealed.
Rationalizer
New Member
I have not replied to many replies on here as some just appear to be argumentative, try to tell me what I am thinking and what actions I should take. OSB58, I hold you in higher regard than most posters on this forum as you have provided very insightful analyses and views in the past, hence I have replied to your message.
Secretive is defined as “characterized by the concealment of intentions and information” which clearly was the case with this meeting, so the title of the thread is correct. Some may misinterpret the words in other ways and I am cannot be responsible for the interpretation of others.
Whilst I believe that the intentions of the Trust are in the best interests of the members (and fans) I feel that some of the actions have not followed the direction laid out.
I do applaud the Trust in their contributions to, and in many cases leading, the campaign to return the club to the City of Coventry. They should feel some justified satisfaction in the result.
BTW, I live in Prague so joining the Trust committee/board would be difficult.
(I will leave you to have the last word)
Secretive is defined as “characterized by the concealment of intentions and information” which clearly was the case with this meeting, so the title of the thread is correct. Some may misinterpret the words in other ways and I am cannot be responsible for the interpretation of others.
Whilst I believe that the intentions of the Trust are in the best interests of the members (and fans) I feel that some of the actions have not followed the direction laid out.
I do applaud the Trust in their contributions to, and in many cases leading, the campaign to return the club to the City of Coventry. They should feel some justified satisfaction in the result.
BTW, I live in Prague so joining the Trust committee/board would be difficult.
(I will leave you to have the last word)
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
You can join the trust online from anywhere
This is now being closed as it seems it is just having a go for the sake of it, I am far from the Trust's number 1 fan as you can see through other posts but it just seems like it is bickering just because.
If people have issues with the Trust, email them
This is now being closed as it seems it is just having a go for the sake of it, I am far from the Trust's number 1 fan as you can see through other posts but it just seems like it is bickering just because.
If people have issues with the Trust, email them
- Status
