Sky Blues Trust - What Does it Stand For? (1 Viewer)

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

What does the SBT stand for?

Thanks

ashbyjan · Jan 4, 2013

SBT stand for Sky Blue Trust, not that complicated although Nick does insist this site is SBT as well so I see your confusion.

+ameatpie&dafillinfellout · Jan 4, 2013

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=57

This might help

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jan 4, 2013

Unless he was asking what the Trust stand for?

If so...Go here>

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/22639-The-Sky-Blue-Trust...

DH - Sky Blue · Jan 4, 2013

I think he means what they stand for in terms of beliefs rather than the acronym - in which case it's self importance for all members.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

ashbyjan said:
SBT stand for Sky Blue Trust, not that complicated although Nick does insist this site is SBT as well so I see your confusion.

I know what the initials stand for. I'm SBT, the forum is SBT and the Trust, is SBT, I know that!

I mean what does the trust stand for in terms of rent, how it'll takeover the club etc. etc.

CJparker · Jan 4, 2013

DH - Sky Blue said:
I think he means what they stand for in terms of beliefs rather than the acronym - in which case it's self importance for all members.

Harsh, they are giving up their time to try and build up a meaningful supporters' organisation. Doign that kind of thing may make a difference in the future, unlike simply complaining on this website or in the pub etc.

However, Taylor is right in that it's not clear enough that the Trust does and what its' practical aims are.

DH - Sky Blue · Jan 4, 2013

CJparker said:
Harsh, they are giving up their time to try and build up a meaningful supporters' organisation. Doign that kind of thing may make a difference in the future, unlike simply complaining on this website or in the pub etc.

However, Taylor is right in that it's not clear enough that the Trust does and what its' practical aims are.

I agree that "trying to build up a meaningful supporters' organisation may make a difference in the future unlike simply complaining on this website or in the pub", and to avoid being hypocritical, I do neither. Unfortunately as far as the SBT (stands for Sky Blues Trust) is concerned, the organisation is not set up by meaningful supporters, and no meaningful supporters have set up an organisation.

wingy · Jan 4, 2013

Define meaningful DH.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

I don't mean to slag off the SBT, but the only potential I see in it is being a minor pressure group, at best, I don't think supporters' trusts are practical in football, in a capitalist society, without bring politics in it, I think it's only practical in a socialist society, or at least if football didn't have as much money in it. 700 (approx) members, £1 fee, £700 in total, that's nothing.

I like the idea of a trust 'mobilising' the fans' voice, but it isn't practical, in 'today's world' anyway.

I also think the Trust isn't going to be what's best for the club business wise, I'll give an example, the rent, wasn't it a position of the Trust to accept a 50% rent reduction? If that's the case then it is clear that the trust aren't great at negotiating as ACL offered a 67% reduction, again, most people would've accepted, but if SISU and ACL come to an agreement, I would put money on it being a further reduction to the 67% deal (please correct me if I'm wrong).

ashbyjan · Jan 4, 2013

In terms of the rent row we have been in constant contact with all parties concerned trying to gauge what is actually going on, try and put some perspective into the minds of the various parties so as they don't overlook the supporters. Much as we would like to we cannot make them sign any agreement but we can try and put the supporters (obviously only Trust members) point of view and how it is impacting on them. We have put some suggestions to the protagonists about the staggering off discussions ie sort rent first, then beverages etc. The Trust has tried to steer a neutral path in these talks but sadly it does appear that they are heading for a very messy conclusion.

Takeover is a white (even Sky Blue) elephant - we have never said the Trust wants to or is capable of taking over the club but we do feel that supporters should be democratically represented at board level and a percentage of the club should be owned by supporters. This would make sure that decisions are taken for the good of supporters and the club and not owners. However should the club be placed into admin or liquidation by these or subsequent owners the Trust has contacts with lawyers, accountants, Football League, Supporters Direct to try and salvage some form of football club.

Any Trust can only be as strong as its membership - with number approaching a 1000 members the Trust does have a voice which the club listens to and does represent a good percentage of the match day support. Can we force the club into doing things? Of course not but we can influence it and ensure the supporters are not forgotten in any decisions that the club takes.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

If the Trust was negotiating (not SISU), would the Trust have accepted the 50% reduction? Yes or No.

EDIT: I'd really like a definite answer on this! I'm incline to believe the Trust would have naively accepted, looking at -50% as a figure as opposed to 600+k! I'm also worried you're dodging import questions that need to be answered.

DH - Sky Blue · Jan 4, 2013

wingy said:
Define meaningful DH.

I'm not at all questioning the intentions of the Trust and they obviously care about the club. But meaningful actions don't include boycotting games and insulting all those who still attend, hoping for a thumbnail and some column inches.

ashbyjan · Jan 4, 2013

To address your point about finances - the £700 is irrelevant (our Directors match day drinks bill is about that) but if the Trust was to continue to grow and say represent 25% of the match day support would the club not be remiss and short-sighted not to take an organisation that represented such a significant part of its customer base seriously? Its about numbers not finances - just as a trade unions power stems from the actual numbers of members not the dues those members pay, be that in a capitalist or socialist society.

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2013

Should the Trust not be impartial and try to work towards the best deal for Coventry City? Forgive me, but judging by your comments on here you are far from impartial.

ashbyjan said:
In terms of the rent row we have been in constant contact with all parties concerned trying to gauge what is actually going on, try and put some perspective into the minds of the various parties so as they don't overlook the supporters. Much as we would like to we cannot make them sign any agreement but we can try and put the supporters (obviously only Trust members) point of view and how it is impacting on them. We have put some suggestions to the protagonists about the staggering off discussions ie sort rent first, then beverages etc. The Trust has tried to steer a neutral path in these talks but sadly it does appear that they are heading for a very messy conclusion.

Takeover is a white (even Sky Blue) elephant - we have never said the Trust wants to or is capable of taking over the club but we do feel that supporters should be democratically represented at board level and a percentage of the club should be owned by supporters. This would make sure that decisions are taken for the good of supporters and the club and not owners. However should the club be placed into admin or liquidation by these or subsequent owners the Trust has contacts with lawyers, accountants, Football League, Supporters Direct to try and salvage some form of football club.

Any Trust can only be as strong as its membership - with number approaching a 1000 members the Trust does have a voice which the club listens to and does represent a good percentage of the match day support. Can we force the club into doing things? Of course not but we can influence it and ensure the supporters are not forgotten in any decisions that the club takes.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

ashbyjan said:
To address your point about finances - the £700 is irrelevant (our Directors match day drinks bill is about that) but if the Trust was to continue to grow and say represent 25% of the match day support would the club not be remiss and short-sighted not to take an organisation that represented such a significant part of its customer base seriously? Its about numbers not finances - just as a trade unions power stems from the actual numbers of members not the dues those members pay, be that in a capitalist or socialist society.

But it doesn't represent even 10% of average match day support.

On TU's, they represent millions of workers, at a rough guess, more than 25% of workers in Britain, but governments, such as the Thatcherite and ConDem coalition, still ignore them. My point here is, the Trust could potentially represent the majority of CCFC supporters, but not have an influence because our owners (whoever they may be) may ignore you.

ashbyjan · Jan 4, 2013

DH - the boycotting of the one game was not organised by the Trust but by Save Our City and even then we were at great pains to get the message across that people had the choice whether to go or not and they should not be insulted or name called. In the eyes of the Trust all supporters are equal be they season ticket holders, regular attendee, home and awayers or just once a season fans - they all support the common cause - Coventry City. Yes a couple of us who were in Save Our City were partly responsible for resurrecting the Trust but we have moved on (grown up you might say) and see the Trust as a better vehicle for promoting the needs of supporters than a one off protest.

WillieStanley · Jan 4, 2013

torchomatic said:
Should the Trust not be impartial and try to work towards the best deal for Coventry City? Forgive me, but judging by your comments on here you are far from impartial.

And it's here where I take issue over the SBTrust. There seems to be too much of an agenda. It all seems to read as if there is a deeper purpose masked behind "the voice of the supporters"

In all fairness though, Jan, you're doing a better job than the last lot!

Grendel · Jan 4, 2013

torchomatic said:
Should the Trust not be impartial and try to work towards the best deal for Coventry City? Forgive me, but judging by your comments on here you are far from impartial.

Fully agree. Think the rhetoric of late is very anti the current owners and very pro ACL.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

Grendel said:
Fully agree. Think the rhetoric of late is very anti the current owners and very pro ACL.

I have to admit, I laughed at the 'we try to be neutral' comment.

ashbyjan · Jan 4, 2013

SBT (Taylor that is ) of course they could ignore us - we could represent every supporter and still be potentially ignored doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for the club to do. Starbucks have started paying some tax - not because they suddenly developed a social conscience but because a significant proportion of their customers made it clear that they should. Any company can ignore its customers but its a short sighted policy to do so and if an organisation represents a significant proportion of those customers it would be just as short sighted to ignore that organisation.

MichaelCCFC · Jan 4, 2013

Taylor - might be worth you looking at what Trusts at other clubs have done. Swansea is a fantastic example of what can be achieved. The Trust does need to make its aims clearer and this will be done as part of updating its legal constitution about which all members will be consulted. Why not come along to Monday's meeting, ask whatever you want and make up your own mind?

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

ashbyjan said:
SBT (Taylor that is ) of course they could ignore us - we could represent every supporter and still be potentially ignored doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for the club to do. Starbucks have started paying some tax - not because they suddenly developed a social conscience but because a significant proportion of their customers made it clear that they should. Any company can ignore its customers but its a short sighted policy to do so and if an organisation represents a significant proportion of those customers it would be just as short sighted to ignore that organisation.

Yeah agreed.

But, I'm still waiting for an answer on the 1st offer to the rent agreement...

WillieStanley · Jan 4, 2013

ashbyjan said:
SBT (Taylor that is ) of course they could ignore us - we could represent every supporter and still be potentially ignored doesn't mean that it would be a smart thing for the club to do. Starbucks have started paying some tax - not because they suddenly developed a social conscience but because a significant proportion of their customers made it clear that they should. Any company can ignore its customers but its a short sighted policy to do so and if an organisation represents a significant proportion of those customers it would be just as short sighted to ignore that organisation.

And what about the perception of a bias of the Trust?

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2013

Perception?!

WillieStanley said:
And what about the perception of a bias of the Trust?

MichaelCCFC · Jan 4, 2013

I can't type quick enough! Posts appeared while I was writing mine.

The Trust is an independent, democratic, supporters organisation. I am concerned that some people (Grendel, Torch, Taylor, Willie) see it as not neutral/having an agenda/anti sisu etc. Would be interested to know how you reach this view.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

MichaelCCFC said:
Taylor - might be worth you looking at what Trusts at other clubs have done. Swansea is a fantastic example of what can be achieved. The Trust does need to make its aims clearer and this will be done as part of updating its legal constitution about which all members will be consulted. Why not come along to Monday's meeting, ask whatever you want and make up your own mind?

I'd say that I'm open minded, I just think the Trust couldn't run the club, it doesn't have the capital to do so. If the Trust one day represents a proportionate amount of fans, I'd like to see it own a minority stake in the club, having say, 1 board member.

What I don't like is, the Trust says it's neutral, but I've always felt it has had a negative vibe towards SISU.

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2013

By reading the majority of Jan's posts. Not difficult really.

MichaelCCFC said:
I am concerned that some people (Grendel, Torch, Taylor, Willie) see it as not neutral/having an agenda/anti sisu etc. Would be interested to know how you reach this view.

Grendel · Jan 4, 2013

MichaelCCFC said:
I can't type quick enough! Posts appeared while I was writing mine.

The Trust is an independent, democratic, supporters organisation. I am concerned that some people (Grendel, Torch, Taylor, Willie) see it as not neutral/having an agenda/anti sisu etc. Would be interested to know how you reach this view.

Perhaps when on this forum Jan says SISU are just interested in "getting their grubby little mitts on the Ricoh".

Might just be me but that seems slightly biased against the owners of the football club.

covcity4life · Jan 4, 2013

yeh, they should be shut down

anti sisu immatuity whilst pretending they are the voice of the fans

ashbyjan · Jan 4, 2013

Grendel said:
Fully agree. Think the rhetoric of late is very anti the current owners and very pro ACL.

All the way along the Trust has called for the two sides to come to an agreement on the rent but the longer the dispute goes on the more creedence appears to be gained by the scenario (a theory which you yourself have supported Grendel) that this whole matter is not about rent but about forcing ACL into administration and getting the arena on the cheap. There is no problem with the club owning the Arena - in fact it would be beneficial for all concerned - but if the club wants to own the stadium then make a proper commercial offer for it and ensure it stays as part of the clubs assets. Not that many months ago Tim Fisher was telling us that they had agreed to purchase the Higgs Charity shares but then that has now died in the water. What the Trust wants is a thriving vibrant community based club with some form of supporter ownership and participation in decision making but the current stadium row is not leading us to this.

torchomatic · Jan 4, 2013

Personally, I have no problem with the Trust being anti-SISU. Makes no odds to me. However, if that is the case then they should drop the impartial/independent voice of the fans nonsense and come out and say what they want to achieve and if that is to get rid of SISU then say so.

MichaelCCFC said:
The Trust is an independent, democratic, supporters organisation. I am concerned that some people (Grendel, Torch, Taylor, Willie) see it as not neutral/having an agenda/anti sisu etc. Would be interested to know how you reach this view.

MichaelCCFC · Jan 4, 2013

Taylor - have a look at the Swansea model where the Trust brought together co-investors and initially had 10% of shares and now has 20% and 2 Board members. The Swans Trust website is a really good read. And as I say, why not come along to Monday's meeting?

Torch - same for you. Why not come to Monday's meeting and see what you think?

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

It's a real shame I haven't got an answer to my question yet.

I'm going to assume the SBT (trust) would've naively accepted a 50% reduction to the rent, allowing the club to continue paying excessive rent, with less power to negotiate further concessions.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jan 4, 2013

MichaelCCFC said:
Taylor - have a look at the Swansea model where the Trust brought together co-investors and initially had 10% of shares and now has 20% and 2 Board members. The Swans Trust website is a really good read. And as I say, why not come along to Monday's meeting?

Torch - same for you. Why not come to Monday's meeting and see what you think?

What time, I have work?

Sky Blues Trust - What Does it Stand For? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New 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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency