Supporters consultative group minutes? (1 Viewer)

TheRoyalScam · Mar 25, 2014

The bizarre demand for apologies from the SBTrust reeks of attack dog Labovitch to me.

How unsurprising that, together with Fisher, he was absent because 'Tynan Scope and I (J Strange) feel that it is high time the SCG had a discussion about itself.'

Nothing to do with the recent CT e-mail revelations then???

The SCG has just dropped another notch in my already poor estimation - they now appear little more than lapdogs without credibility in this continuing farce.

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 25, 2014

TheRoyalScam said:
The bizarre demand for apologies from the SBTrust reeks of attack dog Labovitch to me.

How unsurprising that, together with Fisher, he was absent because 'Tynan Scope and I (J Strange) feel that it is high time the SCG had a discussion about itself.'

Nothing to do with the recent CT e-mail revelations then???

The SCG has just dropped another notch in my already poor estimation - they now appear little more than lapdogs without credibility in this continuing farce.

'Scope has Trust chiefs in his sights'

limoncello · Mar 25, 2014

Why no mention of the SBT reps objecting to the accusations of wrongdoing? Maybe they felt they'd been found out? Sounds like they were proper 'owned' by Jonathan Strange to me.

Nick · Mar 25, 2014

It says about an article dated 1st March, I can't see one on the Trust site?

lamtara2006 · Mar 25, 2014

Nick said:
It says about an article dated 1st March, I can't see one on the Trust site?

I think this was the publication of emails between the Trust & Sandra Garlick which have now been removed.

chiefdave · Mar 25, 2014

Nick said:
It says about an article dated 1st March, I can't see one on the Trust site?

I can't think of anything that's been on the trust website that's worth getting worked up about. The complaint that they put Garlicks letter up on there without her permission is comical. The trust are fans representatives, they are perfectly correct to publish that information and if Garlick feels her response is correct and fair why would she have issue with it being published.

blueflint · Mar 25, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Chair Jonathan Stange who resigned from office in LSG because he disagreed with the majority viewpoint of the membership, strange choice of Chairman.

as a person who has chaired many meetings over a number of years where is the chairmans impartiality. a chairman controls a meeting he does not or should not express his personal opinions he does however get to vote
so the chairmans opening statement can only be taken as a personal view.my opinion is he should apologise and resign

dongonzalos · Mar 25, 2014

chiefdave said:
I can't think of anything that's been on the trust website that's worth getting worked up about. The complaint that they put Garlicks letter up on there without her permission is comical. The trust are fans representatives, they are perfectly correct to publish that information and if Garlick feels her response is correct and fair why would she have issue with it being published.

Why would Sandra Garlick
Chairperson of an independent group. Set ip to get supporters opinions on the stadium. Be producing any documents she does not want supporters to see?

What is going on?

chiefdave · Mar 25, 2014

blueflint said:
so the chairmans opening statement can only be taken as a personal view.my opinion is he should apologise and resign

wouldn't argue with that. it comes across as a rant, and something preplanned. totally out of order, if he had any issues with the Trust he should have requested a meeting with them away from the SCG to attempt to resolve them. his position simply isn't tenable after this.

chiefdave · Mar 25, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Why would Sandra Garlick Chair person of an independent group. Set to get supporters opinions on the stadium. Be producing any documents she does not want supporters to see?
What is going on?

Nothing seems to make sense unless you work from a viewpoint of SISU exerting pressure over these groups and possibly even controlling them. Garlick has refused the biggest supporters representative group that they can't have a seat in her group. She has now complained that they have passed this information on to their members, who voted in favour of trust involvement. On top of that all the details of her groups activities now seem to be confidential and only for viewing by a select few.

The whole thing stinks to be honest and leaves both the SCG and the Garlick group will little credibility.

Broken Hearted Sky Blue · Mar 25, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Why would Sandra Garlick
Chairperson of an independent group. Set ip to get supporters opinions on the stadium. Be producing any documents she does not want supporters to see?

What is going on?

What indeed eh Sandra

oldskyblue58 · Mar 25, 2014

I think that the SCG and to a large extent the club and ignoring what the Trust is. It is an INDEPENDENT body acting primarily in the best interests of its members and to a large degree the CCFC fans in general. It is not part of the club it is not governed by either the club or SCG. It will SEEK to work in partnership with the club and other stakeholders (that does not mean it has to agree with those stakeholders on all issues or even any). It will REPRESENT its members so they have a voice and CAMPAIGN for an improved match day experience (its members voted overwhelmingly not to go to Sixfields)

its Aims are

To build and maintain membership of the Trust;
To return the team to playing in Coventry;
To secure supporter involvement in the ownership and management of the club;
To advocate financial stability for CCFC, with a business model based on avoiding unsustainable debt, and profits being reinvested directly in the Club;
To have City fans recognised as the lifeblood of the Club and at the heart of everything CCFC does

from Trust website

They need to be able to talk with the owners or potential owners of the club. If that can be done presently through the SCG because of the fractious relationship with the present owners then that is how they maintain dialogue. It would seem that the owners do not wish such dialogue and that has been picked up with the SCG who also seem to cut off such contact.

They expressed an opinion that because of the lack of contact or any real means of contact by the SCG with fans that they should have (as voted by its members) a place on the stadium forum. There are members of the SCG that are not part of any fans body and represent basically themselves, (now imo there is no real problem with that so long as they are up front about it and don't try deflect the question with bluster and faux outrage). Claiming to be the Icelandic viking CCFC representative because it gives you a title is actually worthless unless there is some means of talking to those you claim to represent.

I would have thought that creating more divides is the last thing the SCG should be doing (or the Trust) but issuing behave orders or you are out only creates divides not unity. So a few egos are dented...... personally i value the club higher than that for it to be an issue but that's just me

I would have thought at this time it was vital to have as much supporter and supporter group contact as possible ...... so you can get the message across. All the Club have to do is to prove the logic of their argument and to demonstrate clearly the progress........... or is that and the other questions raised by the Trust and others too difficult :thinking about:

Similarly all the SCG had to do was to put out statements refuting the view put forward by the Trust proving why the Trust was wrong and demonstrating that with the achievements of the SCG and the links they have to this fan group or other........ they don't need to issue ultimatums unless of course they just want the Trust off the SCG. But they didn't do that and in so doing damaged their own credibility further

I find it disappointing that at a time when our club is sliding away the main topic of conversation at the last three meetings is that the Trust are not doing as they are told by Club and SCG, that peoples egos have been pricked:facepalm:

all the above is just my opinion to which I am entitled, if it upsets members of the SCG I can only apologise but I wont change it

dongonzalos · Mar 25, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
I think that the SCG and to a large extent the club and ignoring what the Trust is. It is an INDEPENDENT body acting primarily in the best interests of its members and to a large degree the CFC fans in general. It is not part of the club it is not governed by either the club or SCG. It will SEEK to work in partnership with the club and other stakeholders (that does not mean it has to agree with those stakeholders on all issues or even any). It will REPRESENT its members so they have a voice and CAMPAIGN for an improved match day experience (its members voted overwhelmingly not to go to Sixfields)

its Aims are

To build and maintain membership of the Trust;
To return the team to playing in Coventry;
To secure supporter involvement in the ownership and management of the club;
To advocate financial stability for CCFC, with a business model based on avoiding unsustainable debt, and profits being reinvested directly in the Club;
To have City fans recognised as the lifeblood of the Club and at the heart of everything CCFC does

They need to be able to talk with the owners or potential owners of the club. If that can be done presently through the SCG because of the fractious relationship with the present owners then that is how they maintain dialogue. It would seem that the owners do not wish such dialogue and that has been picked up with the SCG who also seem to cut off such contact.

They expressed an opinion that because of the lack of contact or any real means of contact by the SCG with fans that they should have (as voted by its members) a place on the stadium forum. There are members of the SCG that are not part of any fans body and represent basically themselves, (now imo there is no real problem with that so long as they are up front about it and don't try deflect the question with bluster and faux outrage). Claiming to be the Icelandic viking CCFC representative because it gives you a title is actually worthless unless there is some means of talking to those you claim to represent.

I would have thought that creating more divides is the last thing the SCG should be doing (or the Trust) but issuing behave orders or you are out only creates divides not unity. So a few egos are dented...... personally value the club higher than that for it to be an issue but that's just me

I would have thought at this time it was vital to have as much supporter and supporter group contact as possible ...... so you can get the message across. All the Club have to do is to prove the logic of their argument and to demonstrate clearly the progress........... or is that and the other questions raised by the Trust and others too difficult :thinking about:

Similarly all the SCG had to do was to put out statements refuting the view put forward by the Trust proving why the Trust was wrong and demonstrating that with the achievements of the SCG and the links they have to this fan group or other........ they don't need to issue ultimatums unless of course they just want the Trust off the SCG. But they didn't do that and in so doing damaged their own credibility further

all the above is just my opinion to which I am entitled, if it upsets members of the SCG I can only apologise but I wont change it

Echoes exactly what I believe

We the fans want to understand how does plan A have financial viability. Surely the club any to explain this to get the fans backing.

Secondly what tangible progress has been made towards plan A?

bigfatronssba · Mar 25, 2014

I'm confused by what legitimacy the SGC thinks it has?

I may not agree with everything the SBT does, but at least its leadership is elected.

Who appointed the SGC leadership? How can one of us stand for election to its leadership?

Does it feel it represents the majority viewpoint of those it supposedly represents?

TheRoyalScam · Mar 25, 2014

Great post OSB58 - as always a refreshing voice of reason in an increasingly bizarre scenario, instigated by even more bizarre and duplicitous 'owners'.

bigfatronssba · Mar 25, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
I think that the SCG and to a large extent the club and ignoring what the Trust is. It is an INDEPENDENT body acting primarily in the best interests of its members and to a large degree the CFC fans in general. It is not part of the club it is not governed by either the club or SCG. It will SEEK to work in partnership with the club and other stakeholders (that does not mean it has to agree with those stakeholders on all issues or even any). It will REPRESENT its members so they have a voice and CAMPAIGN for an improved match day experience (its members voted overwhelmingly not to go to Sixfields)

its Aims are

To build and maintain membership of the Trust;
To return the team to playing in Coventry;
To secure supporter involvement in the ownership and management of the club;
To advocate financial stability for CCFC, with a business model based on avoiding unsustainable debt, and profits being reinvested directly in the Club;
To have City fans recognised as the lifeblood of the Club and at the heart of everything CCFC does

from Trust website

They need to be able to talk with the owners or potential owners of the club. If that can be done presently through the SCG because of the fractious relationship with the present owners then that is how they maintain dialogue. It would seem that the owners do not wish such dialogue and that has been picked up with the SCG who also seem to cut off such contact.

They expressed an opinion that because of the lack of contact or any real means of contact by the SCG with fans that they should have (as voted by its members) a place on the stadium forum. There are members of the SCG that are not part of any fans body and represent basically themselves, (now imo there is no real problem with that so long as they are up front about it and don't try deflect the question with bluster and faux outrage). Claiming to be the Icelandic viking CCFC representative because it gives you a title is actually worthless unless there is some means of talking to those you claim to represent.

I would have thought that creating more divides is the last thing the SCG should be doing (or the Trust) but issuing behave orders or you are out only creates divides not unity. So a few egos are dented...... personally i value the club higher than that for it to be an issue but that's just me

I would have thought at this time it was vital to have as much supporter and supporter group contact as possible ...... so you can get the message across. All the Club have to do is to prove the logic of their argument and to demonstrate clearly the progress........... or is that and the other questions raised by the Trust and others too difficult :thinking about:

Similarly all the SCG had to do was to put out statements refuting the view put forward by the Trust proving why the Trust was wrong and demonstrating that with the achievements of the SCG and the links they have to this fan group or other........ they don't need to issue ultimatums unless of course they just want the Trust off the SCG. But they didn't do that and in so doing damaged their own credibility further

all the above is just my opinion to which I am entitled, if it upsets members of the SCG I can only apologise but I wont change it

Behave yourself, don't ask awkward questions, don't criticise the owners, and toe the line, otherwise your out

TheRoyalScam · Mar 25, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Echoes exactly what I believe

We the fans want to understand how does plan A have financial viability. Surely the club any to explain this to get the fans backing.

Secondly what tangible progress has been made towards plan A?

I've just checked on the Stadium Forum minutes, but bizarrely cannot repeat anything from them without Garlick's permission. Download them here http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/stadium-forum-committee-meeting-minutes-march-250214-1443110.aspx and you can read the 'progress'.....

olderskyblue · Mar 25, 2014

I am sure that Steve does not intend any discourtesy but for the sake of anyone a little rusty over committee procedure, may I remind them that it is customary a) to tender an
apology, and b) to seek agreement before sending a replacement

a) I have been involved in board meetings, and if a notification has been received that a director cannot attend for a specific reason, that goes into the notes as an apology.

b) If this is written into the rules, then fair comment, although as Steve is representing the SBT, then it seems fair to have a representative there if he cannot make it

And how strange that a ‘letter’ to Jan Mokrzycki could find its way onto the Coventry Telegraph’s mat

I find this comment distasteful. He is clearly insinuating that Jan "leaked" it.

JS expressed his distaste of a SBT statement, still on the SBT website, which referred to the SCG having no meaningful input as it meets infrequently and that SCG members only represent themselves

Some SCG members may represent a specific group but the football club is consulting them through the SCG primarily for what they contribute to representing Coventry City supporters as a whole.

Some? So others do represent no-one except themselves? Inconsistent? or to use their own word, duplicity?

Private correspondence between Sandra Garlick and the SBT appears on the SBT web-site and JS reported that Sandra Garlick is unhappy about this

I haven't read this letter, but why is he getting involved with a private letter between Sandra & SBT ??

Brighton Sky Blue · Mar 25, 2014

TheRoyalScam said:
I've just checked on the Stadium Forum minutes, but bizarrely cannot repeat anything from them without Garlick's permission. Download them here http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/stadium-forum-committee-meeting-minutes-march-250214-1443110.aspx and you can read the 'progress'.....

'The Sky Blue Trust do not have a seat as no organisation was given a seat'

Bob Eales (CCFPA)
David Busst (SBitC)

The former certainly looks like an organisation to me.

oakey · Mar 25, 2014

chiefdave said:
Personally I hope the SBT resign from this. Its clearly now made up of a majority of people who want to position themselves as on the inside and more important than the rest of us. SBT remaining involved just give the SCG some air of legitimacy.

I have sat on public committees and reading those minutes it is clear it is ruled by fear. The list of 3 items expecting a grovelling apology from SBT was passed unanimously without objection, which tells you all you need to know. Anyone with a backbone, would on the balance of evidence have abstained as the case for such an apology was unproven. Any committee that begins by taking a member to task and getting the rest to vote for him to apologise without a cooling off period to reflect (and vote on next meeting) is a bullies' playground.

oakey · Mar 25, 2014

Something about reading those minutes has made me fear, and feel it in my gut for the first time, that our club is truly gone.
I feel sick.

Moff · Mar 25, 2014

TheRoyalScam said:
I've just checked on the Stadium Forum minutes, but bizarrely cannot repeat anything from them without Garlick's permission. Download them here http://www.ccfc.co.uk/news/article/stadium-forum-committee-meeting-minutes-march-250214-1443110.aspx and you can read the 'progress'.....

I am repeating something from the minutes without permission, 'Ricoh and Highfield Road' or am I just writing the names of our Stadiums in our City of Coventry?

I challenge the Club or Garlick to do something about it, seeing as I cant do it without her permission, (even though it may actually not be a copy of part of her crappy minutes) but its all waffle as it doesn't say why or what I am breaching, and the fact is I didn't realise writing the names of our two Coventry homes now cant be done without her permission.

Sorry I have got one on me and they can just f**k off.

Lorksalordy · Mar 25, 2014

I spent 10 minutes of my life that I can never get back reading that utter crock of unadulterated horseshit. They are not minutes they are just incoherent ramblings of a group that have plainly lost touch, lost focus on what should be their priority and got delusions of grandeur regarding their own importance.

Then after all the protocol breach baloney and embarrassing babbling about the SBT and demands for apologies they throw in this little gem in the "AOB" section....

"SBA expressed his ambition for the SCG to take the lead in helping the Club to re-build unity of the currently fractured fan base"

If they take the lead then we are all well and truly bollocksed. The fact that this is on the club website is ludicrous

Moff · Mar 25, 2014

Lorksalordy said:
I spent 10 minutes of my life that I can never get back reading that utter crock of unadulterated horseshit. They are not minutes they are just incoherent ramblings of a group that have plainly lost touch, lost focus on what should be their priority and got delusions of grandeur regarding their own importance.

What a perfect description!

DaleM · Mar 25, 2014

90% of the fanbase is lost . What are they trying to do with these comments and attacks ?
The SCG has lost a lot of face with these last 2 meetings . Fuck Garlick I'm gonna publish the minutes on my facebook later when I ain't on my tab fuck 'em .

AJB1983 · Mar 25, 2014

Be careful, she's a lawyer who specialises in social media.....

Just read the minutes (or a summary of what was discussed), talk about them having a superiority complex.

Seems to me that if you aren't in the inner sanctum of both committees then you are deemed to be lesser fans. That's the impression I get.
The SCG is pointless in my humble opinion.

Nick · Mar 25, 2014

What I dont get is why there was no objection with this bit:

PW stated his belief that the SBT’s apparent duplicity made its further involvement with the SCG untenable, and proposed the following motion:-
Continued inclusion of the SBT within the SCG should be contingent on three specific actions:-
1. An unreserved and public apology to the SCG, individually and collectively, for the recent
comments made by the SBT
2. A retraction of the comments and the Sandra Garlick correspondence from the SBT website
3. A statement to be placed on the SBT website acknowledging positively the SCG’s structure and
Terms of Reference, and the SBT’s commitment to embrace them

The proposal was seconded by KH, a vote was taken on each measure, and the proposal was carried
unanimously without objection.

I wasn't there so can't comment, has the Trust arguing it's side been cut out of the minutes?

So to sum it up, The Trust went to the meeting and then posted saying it turned down the chance to represent the SCG at the Fans Forum meeting because the SCG aren't very important and the SCG thought they were being mugged off?

I can agree about some of the things sometimes that are published by the Trust are a bit spur of the moment, but the tone from the minutes are a bit wrong. It should be "this is our issue, lets sort it out".

The bit about something being written on the website where it was "Roger Ellis did this", could there not be a single user or maybe two who can publish things to prevent things going on?

Serious question, were the Trust involved with setting up the SCG?

blueflint · Mar 25, 2014

a letter by e-mail sent to SCG

may i take a moment of your time to take serious exeption to the minutes you postedon the website.i have read them and find the chairmans lack of impartiality quite
appalling he should apologise and resign as he can't possibly continue after the
opening statement.
i have chaired many committees over the years and have never come across
such a biased view from a cross section of people are they all hand picked for there
duplicity.as a fan of many years i started watching city in 1953 can anyone beat that?
my feelings are that this committee are part of the current problems city are
having and certainly not representative of my opinions i can and will not support
what your committee are standing for in any shape or form.
if this means i have to stop following city then i will.

yours

Anthony Robinson

Nick · Mar 25, 2014

Hasn't the SCG been going since before the whole "Sixfields, SISU apologist stuff". Can anybody say if people have "come and gone" from the SCG panel?

chiefdave · Mar 25, 2014

The minutes from Garlicks group are so ridiculous they're actually comical. They start off listing attendees including people representing SBITC, SCG and the former players association then say the trust aren't involved as they are only allowing individuals not representatives of organisations. Did nobody proof read it and notice how stupid it makes Garlick sound?

There's then 2 topics of discussion, the first is disabled supporters and we get some revelations as the group being accessible to the disabled, having ramps not steps in disabled areas before moving on to younger fans which seems to be pretty much a list of things done at the Ricoh as part of the JSBs. All cutting edge stuff, just as well Garlick is on the case.

covspain · Mar 25, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
To be fair the LSC does represent a good number of fans as well but yes, the SBT is the biggest at this moment in time.

Yes but Jonathon Strange resigned from his position with the LSC because he didn't agree with the majority decision to boycott Sixfields. so he doesn't seem to spek for them.

DaleM · Mar 25, 2014

It's a commitee full of yes men and women . Sisu seem to be surrounding ( trying to surround at the SCG,because IMO the trust will be gone soon ) with people who will toe the party line .
The childhood tale "The Emporer's New Clothes" springs to mind .

stupot07 · Mar 25, 2014

DaleM said:
It's a commitee full of yes men and women . Sisu seem to be surrounding ( trying to surround at the SCG,because IMO the trust will be gone soon ) with people who will toe the party line .
The childhood tale "The Emporer's New Clothes" springs to mind .

It's not a scrutiny committee, the purpose of the group isn't to hold the club to account.

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

Nick · Mar 25, 2014

covspain said:
Yes but Jonathon Strange resigned from his position with the LSC because he didn't agree with the majority decision to boycott Sixfields. so he doesn't seem to spek for them.

“I would like to thank Jon for his hard work and efforts over the past 10 years as chairman. He will be greatly missed” said Colin Henderson, Deputy Chairman, who will act as interim chairman pending appointment of a replacement. “I feel strongly that whilst I deplore as much as anybody the fact that the Sky Blues will not be playing in Coventry next season, it is not for CCLSC as a supporters' club to make it its business how members spend their money and to call on members not to buy season tickets and club merchandise.
"I have no desire to remain part of a supporters' club that is prepared to expose members to the risk of stigmatisation by other members for legitimately exercising their right to support the football club in whatever legal way they may choose,” said Jon Strange.

That reads like he didn't want to encourage the fans as a group to boycott? Can't see much wrong with that, it would be like somebody from the trust quitting because they didn't agree with the Trust encouraging fans to go inside sixfields (fair enough both ways)

DaleM · Mar 25, 2014

Supporters Consultation Group . The clues in the name . But hey lets not represent the 80/90% that wont go to Sixfields . Sounds like yes men to me .

Supporters consultative group minutes? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

limoncello

Guest

Administrator

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency