The Supporters Consultative Group (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

Did some digging just so we get some facts and this is what I have been able to find out

15th October 2005 an idea from the Sky Blue Trust for a "Joint Council" agreed with CCFC
It had the following structure
CCFC 2 places (inc 1 director)
SB Trust 2 places
Coventry City Supporters Club 1 place
Coventry City London Supporters Club 1 place
CCFC Fanzines/website 1 place

The Trust were to Chair the meetings

January 2006 Paul Fletcher renamed it as the Supporters Consultative Group, but group remained independent. The Group was expanded in order to cover a bigger demographic. It was at this point Mr Strange (CC London Supporters Club) Mr Ward (Corporate Premier Club) and others joined

It was later further expanded to include Mr Brown (Club Historian) and Mr Heffernan (Coventry City Irish Supporters Club) and others

Mr Fisher in his role as CCFC CEO sponsors the SCG (I take that to mean he ensures things like room hire etc are paid for by the club but it isn't clear what sponsors means). As I understand it Mr Fisher agreed the terms of reference with the SCG - the general rules under which the SCG operates, that state the number of members, the aims and right of appointing new members

Taken from the published minutes the recent attendees of the SCG are

Club
Tim Fisher (director OEG)
Mark Labovitch (director OEG)
Nick Connoll (CCFC media/website? )
Tynan Scope (commercial manager CCFC)
Lee Corden (Advent Communications/CCFC program)
Jim Brown (official Club statistician)

other
Jonathan Strange (ex of London Supporters Club now representing long distance supporters) Chairman
Peter Ward Vice Chairman
Elaine Ward minute secretary
The Sky Blue Trust ( 2 from Steve Brown, Jan Mokrzycki (and represents Polish CCFC fans), Moz Baker)
Ian Davidson (CCFC London Supporters Club/Sky Blue international)
CovSupportNews (either Steve Barnett and/or Kev Monks)
Ray Stephens (Diamond Club)
Pat Raybould (Junior Sky Blues)
Kevin Heffernan (Coventry City Supporters Irish Branch/Vice Presidents)
Pat Abel (Tickets for Schools)
Darren Davies (originally Block 15 (if I have that wrong I apologise) and "no one likes us,we don't care")
Andy Powell (25-35 demographic)
Chris McGrath (?)
Mark Sorbie (?) (*edit represents disabled supporters)
Ian Barnes (?)


Terms of reference say there are up to 15 members, new members being invited on the voluntary resignation of others

The purpose of the group is stated as

to act as a channel of communication and consultation between the Club and its supporters
to continually improve the overall emotion that is experienced as a supporter of Coventry City Football Club through collaborative discussion and exchange of ideas
to promote the Club’s engagement in the local and regional community
to seek ways to continually improve match day experience, including increasing attendance and enhancing stadium atmosphere
to continually improve the image of the Club and the sense of pride in supporting Coventry City Football Club

my own thoughts & questions on it.......
As I have said elsewhere if they are there representing no one but themselves then fair enough but say so. However if they claim to represent a particular group or type of fan how when and what is the means of communication to that fan group they claim input for? because without such communication then at best they represent only their own views for that fan grouping at worst it is just a meaningless title for self justification. Also there are other supporters clubs listed on the club website why are they not involved? Who represents the disabled fans?(*see above - Mark Sorbie)

Can it be a group that unites the fans? - I seriously doubt it because the last three meetings have been divisive not inclusive. Perhaps they will prove that wrong. Looking at the aims I am not sure how any of it is being achieved

Having researched all that then I still do not feel that I am particularly well represented by the SCG. Nor have I seen any achievements by the SCG as a body (yes individuals and groups in it have achieved eg Pat Raybould for the JSB's but that is not the SCG). I do not perceive them as an independent group even if they are, just because the CEO sponsors it does not mean everything has to be channelled through the club eg get own website. I am uncomfortable with the majority of time spent in berating or doubting its own members because the last thing we need now is more division. I do not doubt the good intentions of any of its members and I am grateful for the time they all put in but it just appears superficial to me. Just my opinions, happy to be proven wrong and no insult or slight intended.

 

---

[Noggin]

Mark Sorbie (Disabled Supporters)

 

[Jack Griffin]

If those are the terms of reference, then the SCG is an utter failure!

 

[dongonzalos]

Exactly

They are there to represent the fans and improve communication between the fans and the club.

If you remove the sky blue trust from that, you remove the biggest portal of communication from the fans.

How do they seek our opinions before a meeting.

For the last meeting for example who was asked what they would like discussed? (No one)

Why could one member of the CCFC bard not make this meeting it only happens once a month? (Pathetic)

Are any of the topics discussed in that meeting things that the fans at the moment wanted discussed (no)

Looks like the chair should be from the trust looking at how it was set up originally

 

[olderskyblue]

Terms of reference say there are up to 15 members, new members being invited on the voluntary resignation of others

So, when JS moved away from the LSG, how come he remained on the SCG ? did someone else voluntarily resign?

 

[Noggin]

Why could one member of the CCFC bard not make this meeting it only happens once a month? (Pathetic)

looks to me like they purposefully didn't attend this week, so Mr Strange could conduct his attack, presumably with great support and agreement from Fisher/Labovich.

I just hope the trust are going to stand up against this, the fact the minutes suggest they didn't complain at the scg concerns me. If the trust bow to this then we really have no one who will stand up for us anymore.

 

[dongonzalos]

Did some digging just so we get some facts and this is what I have been able to find out

15th October 2005 an idea from the Sky Blue Trust for a "Joint Council" agreed with CCFC
It had the following structure
CCFC 2 places (inc 1 director)
SB Trust 2 places
Coventry City Supporters Club 1 place
Coventry City London Supporters Club 1 place
CCFC Fanzines/website 1 place

The Trust were to Chair the meetings

January 2006 Paul Fletcher renamed it as the Supporters Consultative Group, but group remained independent. The Group was expanded in order to cover a bigger demographic. It was at this point Mr Strange (CC London Supporters Club) Mr Ward (Corporate Premier Club) and others joined

It was later further expanded to include Mr Brown (Club Historian) and Mr Heffernan (Coventry City Irish Supporters Club) and others

Mr Fisher in his role as CCFC CEO sponsors the SCG (I take that to mean he ensures things like room hire etc are paid for by the club but it isn't clear what sponsors means). As I understand it Mr Fisher agreed the terms of reference with the SCG - the general rules under which the SCG operates, that state the number of members, the aims and right of appointing new members

Taken from the published minutes the recent attendees of the SCG are

Club
Tim Fisher (director OEG)
Mark Labovitch (director OEG)
Nick Connoll (CCFC media/website? )
Tynan Scope (commercial manager CCFC)
Lee Corden (Advent Communications/CCFC program)
Jim Brown (official Club statistician)

other
Jonathan Strange (ex of London Supporters Club now representing long distance supporters) Chairman
Peter Ward Vice Chairman
Elaine Ward minute secretary
The Sky Blue Trust ( 2 from Steve Brown, Jan Mokrzycki (and represents Polish CCFC fans), Moz Baker)
Ian Davidson (CCFC London Supporters Club/Sky Blue international)
CovSupportNews (either Steve Barnett and/or Kev Monks)
Ray Stephens (Diamond Club)
Pat Raybould (Junior Sky Blues)
Kevin Heffernan (Coventry City Supporters Irish Branch/Vice Presidents)
Pat Abel (Tickets for Schools)
Darren Davies (originally Block 15 (if I have that wrong I apologise) and "no one likes us,we don't care")
Andy Powell (25-35 demographic)
Chris McGrath (?)
Mark Sorbie (?) (*edit represents disabled supporters)
Ian Barnes (?)


Terms of reference say there are up to 15 members, new members being invited on the voluntary resignation of others

The purpose of the group is stated as

to act as a channel of communication and consultation between the Club and its supporters
to continually improve the overall emotion that is experienced as a supporter of Coventry City Football Club through collaborative discussion and exchange of ideas
to promote the Club’s engagement in the local and regional community
to seek ways to continually improve match day experience, including increasing attendance and enhancing stadium atmosphere
to continually improve the image of the Club and the sense of pride in supporting Coventry City Football Club

my own thoughts & questions on it.......
As I have said elsewhere if they are there representing no one but themselves then fair enough but say so. However if they claim to represent a particular group or type of fan how when and what is the means of communication to that fan group they claim input for? because without such communication then at best they represent only their own views for that fan grouping at worst it is just a meaningless title for self justification. Also there are other supporters clubs listed on the club website why are they not involved? Who represents the disabled fans?(*see above - Mark Sorbie)

Can it be a group that unites the fans? - I seriously doubt it because the last three meetings have been divisive not inclusive. Perhaps they will prove that wrong. Looking at the aims I am not sure how any of it is being achieved

Having researched all that then I still do not feel that I am particularly well represented by the SCG. Nor have I seen any achievements by the SCG as a body (yes individuals and groups in it have achieved eg Pat Raybould for the JSB's but that is not the SCG). I do not perceive them as an independent group even if they are, just because the CEO sponsors it does not mean everything has to be channelled through the club eg get own website. I am uncomfortable with the majority of time spent in berating or doubting its own members because the last thing we need now is more division. I do not doubt the good intentions of any of its members and I am grateful for the time they all put in but it just appears superficial to me. Just my opinions, happy to be proven wrong and no insult or slight intended.

Thanks for doing the digging

 

[dongonzalos]

So, when JS moved away from the LSG, how come he remained on the SCG ? did someone else voluntarily resign?

What long distance supporters does he represent?

He is attacking the trust board (with over 2000 members)

How many members are there in the long distance group?

How do you get to be the chair if the SCG if you are running possibly the smallest group?

 

[Jack Griffin]

What long distance supporters does he represent?

He is attacking the trust board (with over 2000 members)

How many members are there in the long distance group?

How do you get to be the chair if the SCG if you are running possibly the smallest group?

Don, he isn't an officer of the LSG anymore, he resigned because he did not agree with the policy of the LSG. so he was in a minority there.
http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/n...ters_club_chairman_resigns_799629/index.shtml

This is the LSG committtee http://www.cclsc.co.uk/ Ian Davidson is the LSG guy at the meeting. Strange has no mandate from anyone.

 

[shmmeee]

looks to me like they purposefully didn't attend this week, so Mr Strange could conduct his attack, presumably with great support and agreement from Fisher/Labovich.

I just hope the trust are going to stand up against this, the fact the minutes suggest they didn't complain at the scg concerns me. If the trust bow to this then we really have no one who will stand up for us anymore.

Hate to say this, but I think that's exactly the position we are in.

Time to wheel out the tennis balls and sky blue coffins I feel.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

 

[Nick]

I think Kingharvest did a good job of representing the members on here.

Edit : Does Jan really represent Polish fans?

 

[covspain]

Hate to say this, but I think that's exactly the position we are in.

Time to wheel out the tennis balls and sky blue coffins I feel.

Tennis balls?

 

[kingharvest]

As some of you know I am part of the group although I haven't been to the last two meetings. I've grown disillusioned with it over the past 6 months because i feel like there is no longer any consultation going on. More recently though i felt the meetings became 2 hours of Tim Fisher (and more recently Mark Labovitch) going over what had been in the press the previous month. There was clarification on some things but I felt that we were actually no longer able to influence anything.

For what its worth, i tried to represent this Forum (I was not chosen, I became a member of the group because i had an idea about matchday cards and was invited to present the idea. I think i got invited back because i at least had 'a voice' that was prepared to speak up). I felt that this forum was a decent enough cross section of fans which actually represented differing views on a number of things, even before Northampton.

I asked for questions before meetings and even managed to get Dan Walker to answer questions outside of the group and posted responses on here. So i made an attempt to try and at least represent the views of those on here who posted questions. I always came on here after meetings with informal notes although this has since stopped because of the formalising of the minutes, etc.

For the record, i've always remained 'pro-club' in all of this, and i put blame on all those involved now and historically. I've had some stick for the fact that i go to sixfields so how can i possibly represent fans who choose not to go. I don't agree with this. I think you can be representative of a group of fans if you listen to their point of view and put it across, regardless of whether you share that view. I always tried to do this. I have my reasons for going to sixfields but not for one second do i agree that we should be there and nor do any of the SCG. But i've remained impartial and consistantly argued the same arguments that the rest of you have. I've tried to seek answers around financial viability of the move, getting back to the Ricoh and essentially the things we all think matter. There are people on here who are far more eloquent than I am at constructing those questions which is why I tried to create some sort of interaction with members of this forum.

I've stepped away from the group since Christmas and I can't currently see me being able to give it the time it needs but as I've said before, I think its vital that the 'online community' are represented on that group, as well as other sections of the fan base. I've asked Nick before if he would attend a meeting but he was unable to. A lot of people seem up for being on the group - perhaps contacting Tynan Scope would be a good way in.

Also, in defence of the group, it is made up of people who are totally committed to the club. You'll recognise names on there and they all try and be representative of a group of fans. Pat does fantastic work with the JSBs and can speak for them. I don't know a single member of that group who goes there to represent themselves. I understand the argument as to why people would think they do, but the reality is that everyone wants the same thing, for us to get back to Coventry, specifically the Ricoh, as soon as possible.

I think one thing that has become obvious from the last few sets of minutes is that the attention seems to have been diverted from the real problem - getting back to Coventry - to this whole thing with the Trust. There is far too much attention diverted to this and its a total distraction from what's really important. I know the club have a massive problem with the trust for historical reasons but the SCG shouldn't allow itself to get caught up in this infighting like it has - in my opinion.

The only way we come out of this is if the fans stick together and choose the right battles - and that goes for all sides, Trust, SCG, Anti-SISU, KCIC, Sixfield attendees, etc. We all want the same thing.

 

[shmmeee]

Tennis balls?

Standard "let's get militant" idea on here.

@Nick: with all due respect I don't think he does. He's a nice guy, but from what I've read hardly puts across the points people want and doesn't push for answers.

I don't blame the attendees, I blame the club for making it quite clear that if you don't agree with them you're out on your ear.

As I said, peaceful revolution has been made impossible. Time to stop pissing around with these groups and forums now IMO.

Edit: shit. One of those "he's behind me isn't he" moments. To clarify: I'm saying that anyone truly representing the opinion if most fans wouldn't be allowed back.

 

[shmmeee]

@Kingsharvest:

Can you state what problem with the Trust the club has? I haven't seen an actual explanation of what they are supposed to have done.

 

[dongonzalos]

As some of you know I am part of the group although I haven't been to the last two meetings. I've grown disillusioned with it over the past 6 months because i feel like there is no longer any consultation going on. More recently though i felt the meetings became 2 hours of Tim Fisher (and more recently Mark Labovitch) going over what had been in the press the previous month. There was clarification on some things but I felt that we were actually no longer able to influence anything.

For what its worth, i tried to represent this Forum (I was not chosen, I became a member of the group because i had an idea about matchday cards and was invited to present the idea. I think i got invited back because i at least had 'a voice' that was prepared to speak up). I felt that this forum was a decent enough cross section of fans which actually represented differing views on a number of things, even before Northampton.

I asked for questions before meetings and even managed to get Dan Walker to answer questions outside of the group and posted responses on here. So i made an attempt to try and at least represent the views of those on here who posted questions. I always came on here after meetings with informal notes although this has since stopped because of the formalising of the minutes, etc.

For the record, i've always remained 'pro-club' in all of this, and i put blame on all those involved now and historically. I've had some stick for the fact that i go to sixfields so how can i possibly represent fans who choose not to go. I don't agree with this. I think you can be representative of a group of fans if you listen to their point of view and put it across, regardless of whether you share that view. I always tried to do this. I have my reasons for going to sixfields but not for one second do i agree that we should be there and nor do any of the SCG. But i've remained impartial and consistantly argued the same arguments that the rest of you have. I've tried to seek answers around financial viability of the move, getting back to the Ricoh and essentially the things we all think matter. There are people on here who are far more eloquent than I am at constructing those questions which is why I tried to create some sort of interaction with members of this forum.

I've stepped away from the group since Christmas and I can't currently see me being able to give it the time it needs but as I've said before, I think its vital that the 'online community' are represented on that group, as well as other sections of the fan base. I've asked Nick before if he would attend a meeting but he was unable to. A lot of people seem up for being on the group - perhaps contacting Tynan Scope would be a good way in.

Also, in defence of the group, it is made up of people who are totally committed to the club. You'll recognise names on there and they all try and be representative of a group of fans. Pat does fantastic work with the JSBs and can speak for them. I don't know a single member of that group who goes there to represent themselves. I understand the argument as to why people would think they do, but the reality is that everyone wants the same thing, for us to get back to Coventry, specifically the Ricoh, as soon as possible.

I think one thing that has become obvious from the last few sets of minutes is that the attention seems to have been diverted from the real problem - getting back to Coventry - to this whole thing with the Trust. There is far too much attention diverted to this and its a total distraction from what's really important. I know the club have a massive problem with the trust for historical reasons but the SCG shouldn't allow itself to get caught up in this infighting like it has - in my opinion.

The only way we come out of this is if the fans stick together and choose the right battles - and that goes for all sides, Trust, SCG, Anti-SISU, KCIC, Sixfield attendees, etc. We all want the same thing.

Top post
Real shame you can't attend anymore
Maybe you could use your connection to pass our thoughts and concerns to Mr Strange that the fans want the meetings to be about getting answers from our owners that we have not yet had. Not a side show or theatre about what is in the press or supporters fractions.

It could be possible that someone with a background in advising politicians may want this sort if theatre to distract from the real questions

 

[dongonzalos]

Don, he isn't an officer of the LSG anymore, he resigned because he did not agree with the policy of the LSG. so he was in a minority there.
http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/n...ters_club_chairman_resigns_799629/index.shtml

This is the LSG committtee http://www.cclsc.co.uk/ Ian Davidson is the LSG guy at the meeting. Strange has no mandate from anyone.

So he can't be there surely?

 

[kingharvest]

@Kingsharvest:

Can you state what problem with the Trust the club has? I haven't seen an actual explanation of what they are supposed to have done.

I think its in some of the previous minutes, but it seems to boil down to the fact that the club think the Trust have kind of fallen on the side of the council/ACL and been disruptive. They apparently backed the rejection of the CVA and supported PH4. Then there was the whole thing with the ribbons in the training ground.

There is also stuff involving previous Trust members that have clashed with the club although I don't understand a lot of it if i'm being honest - the infighting bores the hell out of me. Its pointless and destructive.

 

[torchomatic]

I can't think of what the Trust have done to upset the Club as personally, I don't think the Trust does very much at all.

@Kingsharvest:

Can you state what problem with the Trust the club has? I haven't seen an actual explanation of what they are supposed to have done.

 

[kingharvest]

Top post
Real shame you can't attend anymore
Maybe you could use your connection to pass our thoughts and concerns to Mr Strange that the fans want the meetings to be about getting answers from our owners that we have not yet had. Not a side show or theatre about what is in the press or supporters fractions.

It could be possible that someone with a background in advising politicians may want this sort if theatre to distract from the real questions

Personally, i think you're probably pretty close to the truth. If we're all talking about the Trust we aren't talking about anything else.

I'm not sure why the SCG email isn't working to be honest, i thought it was. I'll try and find out.

 

[The Gentleman]

Personally, i think you're probably pretty close to the truth. If we're all talking about the Trust we aren't talking about anything else.

I'm not sure why the SCG email isn't working to be honest, i thought it was. I'll try and find out.

Do you know when the next SCG meeting is and where they are held?

 

[Noggin]

Do you know when the next SCG meeting is and where they are held?

Thursday 24th April 6.30 at the squirrel pub which provides the space for free.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Thanks for that KH...... I have always appreciated the efforts you have made to keep us involved/informed..... the SCG will be weaker for you not being involved

Just to clear something up (hopefully once and for all) this is part of a statement from the Trust website dated 01/08/13 the day before the final CVA meeting

ACL you need to agree with SISU/Otium over a mutually beneficial rent deal, sign the CVA and help the Club with the FFP/SCMP regime by agreeing a basis for stadium income on match days to be reflected in the Club's accounts

hardly what I would call supporting the rejection of the CVA.............

 

[fernandopartridge]

Pat Raybould is knocking on a bit to be a JSB

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

JFK is so right. If peaceful protest is removed then only violence is left

 

[Nick]

The thing is, have the Trust actually replied about what happened with ACL / Haskell etc? The club keep going on about the Trust being in with Haskell etc but has it been actually denied?

I do think the Trust were maybe a bit Naive with some statements / action at the time:

FANS’ group the Sky Blue Trust say they welcome Preston Haskell’s offer to hand 20 per cent of the club over to fans if he can buy Coventry City.

It is as if when the club say it, the trust go quiet. (unless it is the legal stuff)

 

[kingharvest]

Thanks for that KH...... I have always appreciated the efforts you have made to keep us involved/informed..... the SCG will be weaker for you not being involved

Just to clear something up (hopefully once and for all) this is part of a statement from the Trust website dated 01/08/13 the day before the final CVA meeting

ACL you need to agree with SISU/Otium over a mutually beneficial rent deal, sign the CVA and help the Club with the FFP/SCMP regime by agreeing a basis for stadium income on match days to be reflected in the Club's accounts

hardly what I would call supporting the rejection of the CVA.............

Fair enough that, shame they didn't listen! However I still think the club believe something else.

 

[oldskyblue58]

"FANS’ group the Sky Blue Trust say they welcome Preston Haskell’s offer to hand 20 per cent of the club over to fans if he can buy Coventry City"

considering one of the basic stated aims of the Trust is and always has been

"To secure supporter involvement in the ownership and management of the club"

Then you expect them to welcome someone who says he would offer that involvement, what was not said was that they had accepted that offer...... because only the owners of the club shares can actually make a proper offer

The Trust also said that they would welcome such offers from anyone interested in ownership. At the time the statement was made the ownership of CCFC had not been decided and the identities of all the bidders in the administration process were not made public. As far as I know the present owners have never indicated they sought such fan involvement

 

[dongonzalos]

Also the lsg are not getting any flack and they sent a open letter to JS TF saying they support a boycott of the club whilst it is Northampton

 

[dongonzalos]

Fair enough that, shame they didn't listen! However I still think the club believe something else.

They believe that if they keep throwing mud and dividing the supporters groups.

The supporters groups will be less effective at demanding answers to fundamental questions that justify our move to Northampton .

 

[Jack Griffin]

Also the lsg are not getting any flack and they sent a open letter to JS TF saying they support a boycott of the club whilst it is Northampton

So they'll be next unless they keep schtum?

 

[dongonzalos]

The thing is, have the Trust actually replied about what happened with ACL / Haskell etc? The club keep going on about the Trust being in with Haskell etc but has it been actually denied?

I do think the Trust were maybe a bit Naive with some statements / action at the time:



It is as if when the club say it, the trust go quiet. (unless it is the legal stuff)

The trust represent the fans opinions
If the majority of the fans felt new owners was a good option then the trust have to portray that opinion.

Why should they be punished for that?

It is down to the club to convince the trust and by doing so the fans that they are best option for the club.

Not punish the group for daring to challenge them

 

[brinner]

Did some digging just so we get some facts and this is what I have been able to find out

15th October 2005 an idea from the Sky Blue Trust for a "Joint Council" agreed with CCFC
It had the following structure
CCFC 2 places (inc 1 director)
SB Trust 2 places
Coventry City Supporters Club 1 place
Coventry City London Supporters Club 1 place
CCFC Fanzines/website 1 place

The Trust were to Chair the meetings

January 2006 Paul Fletcher renamed it as the Supporters Consultative Group, but group remained independent. The Group was expanded in order to cover a bigger demographic. It was at this point Mr Strange (CC London Supporters Club) Mr Ward (Corporate Premier Club) and others joined

It was later further expanded to include Mr Brown (Club Historian) and Mr Heffernan (Coventry City Irish Supporters Club) and others

Mr Fisher in his role as CCFC CEO sponsors the SCG (I take that to mean he ensures things like room hire etc are paid for by the club but it isn't clear what sponsors means). As I understand it Mr Fisher agreed the terms of reference with the SCG - the general rules under which the SCG operates, that state the number of members, the aims and right of appointing new members

Taken from the published minutes the recent attendees of the SCG are

Club
Tim Fisher (director OEG)
Mark Labovitch (director OEG)
Nick Connoll (CCFC media/website? )
Tynan Scope (commercial manager CCFC)
Lee Corden (Advent Communications/CCFC program)
Jim Brown (official Club statistician)

other
Jonathan Strange (ex of London Supporters Club now representing long distance supporters) Chairman
Peter Ward Vice Chairman
Elaine Ward minute secretary
The Sky Blue Trust ( 2 from Steve Brown, Jan Mokrzycki (and represents Polish CCFC fans), Moz Baker)
Ian Davidson (CCFC London Supporters Club/Sky Blue international)
CovSupportNews (either Steve Barnett and/or Kev Monks)
Ray Stephens (Diamond Club)
Pat Raybould (Junior Sky Blues)
Kevin Heffernan (Coventry City Supporters Irish Branch/Vice Presidents)
Pat Abel (Tickets for Schools)
Darren Davies (originally Block 15 (if I have that wrong I apologise) and "no one likes us,we don't care")
Andy Powell (25-35 demographic)
Chris McGrath (?)
Mark Sorbie (?) (*edit represents disabled supporters)
Ian Barnes (?)


Terms of reference say there are up to 15 members, new members being invited on the voluntary resignation of others

The purpose of the group is stated as

to act as a channel of communication and consultation between the Club and its supporters
to continually improve the overall emotion that is experienced as a supporter of Coventry City Football Club through collaborative discussion and exchange of ideas
to promote the Club’s engagement in the local and regional community
to seek ways to continually improve match day experience, including increasing attendance and enhancing stadium atmosphere
to continually improve the image of the Club and the sense of pride in supporting Coventry City Football Club

my own thoughts & questions on it.......
As I have said elsewhere if they are there representing no one but themselves then fair enough but say so. However if they claim to represent a particular group or type of fan how when and what is the means of communication to that fan group they claim input for? because without such communication then at best they represent only their own views for that fan grouping at worst it is just a meaningless title for self justification. Also there are other supporters clubs listed on the club website why are they not involved? Who represents the disabled fans?(*see above - Mark Sorbie)

Can it be a group that unites the fans? - I seriously doubt it because the last three meetings have been divisive not inclusive. Perhaps they will prove that wrong. Looking at the aims I am not sure how any of it is being achieved

Having researched all that then I still do not feel that I am particularly well represented by the SCG. Nor have I seen any achievements by the SCG as a body (yes individuals and groups in it have achieved eg Pat Raybould for the JSB's but that is not the SCG). I do not perceive them as an independent group even if they are, just because the CEO sponsors it does not mean everything has to be channelled through the club eg get own website. I am uncomfortable with the majority of time spent in berating or doubting its own members because the last thing we need now is more division. I do not doubt the good intentions of any of its members and I am grateful for the time they all put in but it just appears superficial to me. Just my opinions, happy to be proven wrong and no insult or slight intended.

if there has ever been a "clique" of fans then the SCG is exactly that.

Don't represent all the fans, just themselves really.

This was proved a few years ago when they said it was ok for the club to change the badge and take the civic colours out of it, Peter Ward sanctioned it from what I remember............so he/they speak for all of us??

I don't know anyone that has been consulted on any CCFC topic by the SCG ever.

 

[shmmeee]

It is a bit of a boys club of CCFC fans isn't it?

I met a few at the stadium forum, all "I know more than you" and "I'm closer to the club", while speaking bollocks and being pissed as a fart at a meeting. Absolute joke.

Can't believe people are still on the club's side here.

 

[torchomatic]

As you say it probably makes them feel "special" and "on the inside".

It is a bit of a boys club of CCFC fans isn't it?

I met a few at the stadium forum, all "I know more than you" and "I'm closer to the club", while speaking bollocks and being pissed as a fart at a meeting. Absolute joke.

Can't believe people are still on the club's side here.