I may very well try to attend. I was seriously thinking of standing for the trust but im in Spain at the moment and have been for 5 weeks. Back in time for the AGM tho I hope. Never been to one but am sick and tired of the bollocks put out and the love in with Franchise Wasps and the corrupt council and blinkered views of Sisu (whom I also have no love for.) pusbIf you can make it I believe there’s a growing number of us planning on attending the next Trust meeting (15th July) to drive this very point. The more the merrier.
I may very well try to attend. I was seriously thinking of standing for the trust but im in Spain at the moment and have been for 5 weeks. Back in time for the AGM tho I hope. Never been to one but am sick and tired of the bollocks put out and the love in with Franchise Wasps and the corrupt council and blinkered views of Sisu (whom I also have no love for.) pusb
They wouldn't listen, they've got their heads stuffed far too far up their own/David Johnson/Wasps/the councils arse to hear.Go and tell them
Are you bald, shouty and love u some Council, Wasps & Hoffman m8 ?
It's like when I got home from work last night, the first thing I said to my wife as I walked through the door was, "I definitely didn't have five chicken selects, large fries and a milkshake at lunch. Who said I did?"
Make sure it's constructive and not people just throwing accusations around (which becomes plain embarrassing) Hopefully those attending want to provide positive input (my first thought was of one of those old Frankenstein films where the local villagers all marched on the castle, pitchforks and torches at the ready!)
Edit: although I don't know much about the Trust members, I do have time for CJ, who comes across as a decent bloke.
Yeah, think it's unfair to say there's no potential for different views and yes, not had a problem with either Moz or CJ's approach tbf. Without Moz we'd have all been quite... quiet tooDefinitely keep it constructive. Not sure how well it will be received across either the board or the floor on a whole but I know there will be people on the floor who feel the same/similar. Could always do with some more numbers though.
Don’t know much about the board members myself. Moz was at the Wasps protest and got the sing song going to be fair, although I didn’t speak to him personally his presence you would think is a fair indication that he’s open to giving Wasps attention. CJ is very approachable, in fact he’s also proactive in that. It’s my experience that he can approach you before you approach him.
Realised that after the post. I’d already used exclamation marks ,ran out of vocabulary . Happens a lotFoul mouthed abbreviations don’t count then m8?
tbf (among many reasons!) that's why I wouldn't stand for the board myself!I dont think people realise the time and effort they put in.
Yeah, think it's unfair to say there's no potential for different views and yes, not had a problem with either Moz or CJ's approach tbf. Without Moz we'd have all been quite... quiet too
I personally don't want us to learn from SISU / CCC / Wasps (delete according to bias!) and for us to all end up fighting each other. I'd rather we had a constructive approach that sees views aired, and working together to end up with a wider reaching, more dynamic, more visible profile against all parties as the result.
Is that possible? Only one way to find out!
Realised that after the post. I’d already used exclamation marks ,ran out of vocabulary . Happens a lot
I'm still hoping to be able to sidle into the backgroundYou do know we’ve had a vote and you’re our official spokesperson at the meeting?
Perhaps Nick could start a thread for points and proposals that could be put to the next Trust meeting. Anyone who can attend could have a proxy from all those who agree to present them?
I'm still hoping to be able to sidle into the background
I spoke to CJ recently (before wasps "protest") at a charity football game. Made him aware how the trust was coming over regarding one sidedness. He seemed to understand and he himself has supported and tweeted away from the trust regarding other parties than just SISU.I 've spoken to Moz a couple of times at away games spoken to cj at England away games.Both seem quite reasonable but just seem to be blinkered in favour of a deal with the Franchise and are supportive of the Counci. I dont think people realise the time and effort they put in. I think there's others on the Board who have their own agendas which are not necessarily in the interests of Ccfc under sisu. I dont think any Trust member wants Sisu in charge of our club and neither do I. I certainly dont want a Franchise rugby club in charge tho.
Yes indeed there has. Most were hoping a statement would be on the way condemning Wasps and CCC, something that to date the trust have seemed very reluctant to do. What we've got couldn't be further from that.
I would suggest the big topic of discussion the last 48 hours hasn't been have the trust ever met with Hoffman and / or Wasps. It was more the comments made by Sepalla and Overson. So again I would have expected a statement saying that the trust in no uncertain terms does not support a takeover of CCFC that involves a rugby club that happily moved halfway across the country.
You're confusing two things here. Its been talked about for literally years, going back to the PK4 mess, that the trust were playing a dangerous game siding with attempts to force ownership. Yes, the trust before now have never openly admitted these meetings took place but its hardly an earth shattering revelation and again is not what needs to be focused on at the moment.
I’d be up for this as a starting point. But it would require someone to coordinate all the points raised into a coherent argument/motion to put forward to the meeting in a constructive manner.Perhaps Nick could start a thread for points and proposals that could be put to the next Trust meeting. Anyone who can attend could have a proxy from all those who agree to present them?
A disgusting foul mouthed rant directed towards a group of football club supporters who have a different point of view re the solution to a crisis at our club ,liked by some of the usual. Don’t set up a rival group , roll up to meetings introduce your point ,argue it well and try to change minds
So they are responding to say they don't know something that the press haven't suggested they do know?
A bit weird.
So what happened in the meetings with Hoffman and with wasps? At the time the meetings with wasps couldn't be discussed for legal reasons.
They have been asked for statements on multiple things for years, why the rush to put this one out?
Good to hear they’re responding to social media pressure now. That means a statement condemning London Wasps and CCC will be our soon...The trust statement states that they are responding to comments made in the press and on social media. There have been comments, even on here, suggesting the trust want to own the club/are part of the bid, so they have tried to address that, hence why i'm surprised that you ask "why now". It's obvious, it says so in their statement.
The comments made by Overson and Seppala suggested/stated that Wasps were part funding the bid by Hoffmans team. That is the big topic over the last 48 hours. The trust have clarified that they have had meetings with Hoffman's team and nobody from Wasps were present, but also that they were not told who the consortium members were. The main thing is that they have not been, never have been a member of the consortium. I assume these are all points they have been accused of recently on social media.
They are addressing comments made on social media, not years ago, but now, as is obvious from their statement.
I agree they could have said more, especially distancing themselves from Wasps, but this to me was specifically aimed at flack they have taken about their "involvement" with Hoffman and Wasps. You're on social media, have you seen any of this?
I’d be up for this as a starting point. But it would require someone to coordinate all the points raised into a coherent argument/motion to put forward to the meeting in a constructive manner.
Re attendance, I can’t get to Trust meetings from Switzerland so easily. More than happy to have someone from here act as proxy for my vote.
So 2 questions. 1. Who from here is willing to pull our collective opinions together. 2. Who would like to help those of us who can’t attend by acting as proxy?
Seriously? That goes back as far as 2013 yet all of a sudden now when there's a bit of pressure on Wasps they decide to release a statement on it. No mention of the claims of Wasps being involved in the takeover of CCFC or Overson pulling out of the consortium or anything else that has been widely discussed in the last couple of days.You're all over social media nick, have you seen anything that would prompt it?
They mention social media too...a bit weird you missed that out..
You're all over social media nick, have you seen anything that would prompt it?
Out of the frying pan ........I want Grendel to be the new chair of the trust :smuggrin:
Too scared to put his name forward.I want Grendel to be the new chair of the trust :smuggrin:
It's like when I got home from work last night, the first thing I said to my wife as I walked through the door was, "I definitely didn't have five chicken selects, large fries and a milkshake at lunch. Who said I did?"
Perhaps Nick could start a thread for points and proposals that could be put to the next Trust meeting. Anyone who can attend could have a proxy from all those who agree to present them?
OK so we can't formally propose a motion, but we can still coordinate something as there is (or should be at an AGM) an opportunity for attendees to ask questions and prompt a debate/discussion around the Trust's stance.The problem is you have to put these points 28 days before the meeting or they are not there as a point of discussion - also even if it is before 28 days the secretary and the board seem to have the power to decide if it’s discussed or not. I suspect if we have an issue that’s of concern to a number of posters on here they will say it’s not relevant as all would have to be trust members
Even then it requires a 66% approval to get through
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?