What a shock... the trust "speak up" (1 Viewer)

SkyBlueCRJ · Jan 14, 2020

Nick said:
Tynan Scope has also questioned that this morning.

It's strange how suddenly the Trust have a different account of their meeting with Wasps suddenly when the indemnity starts getting questioned.

Why do they continue to do this though because it's truly baffling to me? Like being objective what do they genuinely believe will come from pandering to Wasps other than getting their hands on a few free tickets and getting in their good graces - which is a useless exercise I might add.

Wasps must be laughing knowing that they have the clubs main supporters group right under their thumb as they know full well the vast majority of Trust supporters will be lapping up their every word. Talk about stockholm syndrome.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 14, 2020

SkyBlueCRJ said:
Why do they continue to do this though because it's truly baffling to me? Like being objective what do they genuinely believe will come from pandering to Wasps other than getting their hands on a few free tickets and getting in their good graces - which is a useless exercise I might add.

Wasps must be laughing knowing that they have the clubs main supporters group right under their thumb as they know full well the vast majority of Trust supporters will be lapping up their every word. Talk about stockholm syndrome.

I do think they have a point about what plans and actions are taking place to move back to coventry but it’s way down the list of priorities

clint van damme · Jan 14, 2020

olderskyblue said:
firstly, there’s nothing new here. The deal was done, the champagne ready to be opened to celebrate, and then wasps found out that SISU had, during all these discussions and agreements, gone behind everyone’s back and complained to the EU.

that completely overturned all the “goodwill” going on between CCFC and wasps.

secondly, wasps are concerned the EU might disagree with all the UK judges who have deemed the Ricoh deal as above board. (Bit different to you saying they would “get found out”, but same end result). If that happened there may be significant costs involved to wasps.

the people who should be indemnifying them (if anyone should) is CCC, and I understand they refused.

it’s clear CCFC should not, but what’s new in anything the trust have said now?

what do you want them to do about wasps if they say the indemnity remains in the deal ? Whatever it is, I think we both agree they won’t do it.

so you're confirming that it's Neil who is lying?

clint van damme · Jan 14, 2020

PurpleBin said:
You've posted over 700 times Buster.

and doesn't comment about the football, fucking weirdo.

olderskyblue · Jan 14, 2020

clint van damme said:
so you're confirming that it's Neil who is lying?

hasn’t he said the same thing?

but it’s the same stuff we’ve known about for ages. Just saying “wasps need to drop the indemnity” won’t just make it happen, whoever says it.

the bit they’ve said which is weird is wanting transparency. The trust have had various meetings with different groups and haven’t reported back on it to their members. NDA’s etc. Transparency? Practice what you preach before making statements like that.

Liquid Gold · Jan 14, 2020

olderskyblue said:
firstly, there’s nothing new here. The deal was done, the champagne ready to be opened to celebrate, and then wasps found out that SISU had, during all these discussions and agreements, gone behind everyone’s back and complained to the EU.

that completely overturned all the “goodwill” going on between CCFC and wasps.

secondly, wasps are concerned the EU might disagree with all the UK judges who have deemed the Ricoh deal as above board. (Bit different to you saying they would “get found out”, but same end result). If that happened there may be significant costs involved to wasps.

the people who should be indemnifying them (if anyone should) is CCC, and I understand they refused.

it’s clear CCFC should not, but what’s new in anything the trust have said now?

what do you want them to do about wasps if they say the indemnity remains in the deal ? Whatever it is, I think we both agree they won’t do it.

In their own words Wasps continued to negotiate despite the EU complaint.

SkyBlueCRJ · Jan 14, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
I do think they have a point about what plans and actions are taking place to move back to coventry but it’s way down the list of priorities

Yeah it's a fair question but let's be honest I don't think there are any. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the Ricoh is their one and only ticket back to the city. Judging from the response last season no other club is likely to be willing to groundshare with us within the area and if by some miracle SISU kept to their word and laid down plans for a new stadium the club wouldn't even survive to see it built. The club will be exploring options and that's all they would and could come out with.

olderskyblue · Jan 14, 2020

Liquid Gold said:
In their own words Wasps continued to negotiate despite the EU complaint.

was that when the indemnity clause was “negotiated” ?

Nick · Jan 14, 2020

olderskyblue said:
hasn’t he said the same thing?

but it’s the same stuff we’ve known about for ages. Just saying “wasps need to drop the indemnity” won’t just make it happen, whoever says it.

the bit they’ve said which is weird is wanting transparency. The trust have had various meetings with different groups and haven’t reported back on it to their members. NDA’s etc. Transparency? Practice what you preach before making statements like that.

Where did Neil mention the indemnity? He said they were softening and would talk.

CJ has said they won't talk unless the indemnity is satisfied.

The Trust haven't even acknowledged the indemnity have they? The same as CWR tried to ignore it.

Suddenly when Pete calls them out it fires them up.

Esoterica · Jan 14, 2020

Nick said:
Where did Neil mention the indemnity? He said they were softening and would talk.

CJ has said they won't talk unless the indemnity is satisfied.

The Trust haven't even acknowledged the indemnity have they? The same as CWR tried to ignore it.

Suddenly when Pete calls them out it fires them up.

What do you think has driven this latest trust statement? 'Someone' asked them to in response to Pete publicly shifting focus onto Wasps and the indemnity clause? Or is that too simplistic?

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 14, 2020

Esoterica said:
What do you think has driven this latest trust statement? 'Someone' asked them to in response to Pete publicly shifting focus onto Wasps and the indemnity clause? Or is that too simplistic?

It’s all me mate all me. Lol

mr_monkey · Jan 14, 2020

Nick said:
Where did Neil mention the indemnity? He said they were softening and would talk.

CJ has said they won't talk unless the indemnity is satisfied.

The Trust haven't even acknowledged the indemnity have they? The same as CWR tried to ignore it.

Suddenly when Pete calls them out it fires them up.

Only mentioned it in that email to Pete as far as I'm aware

Nick · Jan 14, 2020

Esoterica said:
What do you think has driven this latest trust statement? 'Someone' asked them to in response to Pete publicly shifting focus onto Wasps and the indemnity clause? Or is that too simplistic?

The last time they piped up with their misleading statement in the Telegraph was when Wasps were getting flack about their training base.

As soon as some pressure is on about the indemnity, Linnell getting corrected they chirp up about meetings from months ago after being asked for months what happened in them.

Why do they just let little snippets out to make Wasps look good?

Esoterica · Jan 14, 2020

Sky Blue Pete said:
It’s all me mate all me. Lol

Well you had to make up for that massive OTT mancrush on Lee Burge somehow.

olderskyblue · Jan 14, 2020

Nick said:
Where did Neil mention the indemnity? He said they were softening and would talk.

CJ has said they won't talk unless the indemnity is satisfied.

The Trust haven't even acknowledged the indemnity have they? The same as CWR tried to ignore it.

Suddenly when Pete calls them out it fires them up.

They're regularly talking, Boddy confirmed that ages ago. Softening? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

No idea if they have acknowledged the indemnity or not, but it's hardly deniable is it? Everyone knows it.

tbh, after the meeting I attended, I was willing to give the trust a chance to see if things would change. Dave E definitely paid attention to the points we all made, but then Neil came in and things seem to have gone back to the dark ages (using grendel's twitter altercations with him as a guide...)

I will probably attend the next one to voice my opinion again. (and to vote for grendel to be on the board...) Anyone else?

Nick · Jan 14, 2020

olderskyblue said:
They're regularly talking, Boddy confirmed that ages ago. Softening? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

No idea if they have acknowledged the indemnity or not, but it's hardly deniable is it? Everyone knows it.

tbh, after the meeting I attended, I was willing to give the trust a chance to see if things would change. Dave E definitely paid attention to the points we all made, but then Neil came in and things seem to have gone back to the dark ages (using grendel's twitter altercations with him as a guide...)

I will probably attend the next one to voice my opinion again. (and to vote for grendel to be on the board...) Anyone else?

Well yeah everybody on here knows it but Stuart Linnell didn't seem to know which is why Pete corrected him. He seems desperate to mislead people about that being the sticking block.

He then came out with a line almost word for word the same as CJ "The action can't be stopped but they can do the gesture of asking for it to be forgotten"

Why after months of me asking Neil and CJ what happened in their meeting they go to the Telegraph to basically say "Wasps do want to talk" and ignore the indemnity?

shmmeee · Jan 14, 2020

SkyBlueCRJ said:
Why do they continue to do this though because it's truly baffling to me? Like being objective what do they genuinely believe will come from pandering to Wasps other than getting their hands on a few free tickets and getting in their good graces - which is a useless exercise I might add.

Wasps must be laughing knowing that they have the clubs main supporters group right under their thumb as they know full well the vast majority of Trust supporters will be lapping up their every word. Talk about stockholm syndrome.

Objectively? Sisu have refused to engage with them from the start and actively worked to discredit them. So the only information they get is from the other side.

Why we need to be careful with any new group not to end up the mirror image that pisses off Wasps and only talks to Sisu.

All the way through it’s been biased info from one of two sides. Even the papers have taken sides.

Sky Blue Pete · Jan 14, 2020

Esoterica said:
Well you had to make up for that massive OTT mancrush on Lee Burge somehow.

Very true. Can’t believe how much difference marosi has made

Nick · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
Objectively? Sisu have refused to engage with them from the start and actively worked to discredit them. So the only information they get is from the other side.

Why we need to be careful with any new group not to end up the mirror image that pisses off Wasps and only talks to Sisu.

All the way through it’s been biased info from one of two sides. Even the papers have taken sides.

To be honest I much prefer the "dont talk to any of the cunts" method. If you start getting matey with any of them it's when you become biased.

It's like when the Trust were outside the council house posing for handshake pictures with Duggins like a footballer signing for a new club, applauding Wasps and then chanting in sleeping bags outside an office SISU don't even use.

ajsccfc · Jan 14, 2020

Buster said:
No ,they’re all too busy posting profanities a talking shite on Sky Blues Talk
Come out of your bedrooms,start leading normal lives and perhaps get other interests. I seriously worry about some on here’s mental stability

If you think everyone on the internet is stuck indoors in their bedrooms you need to come out of the 90s. Some of us post on the toilet

Badger · Jan 14, 2020

olderskyblue said:
They're regularly talking, Boddy confirmed that ages ago. Softening? I have no idea, but I doubt it.

No idea if they have acknowledged the indemnity or not, but it's hardly deniable is it? Everyone knows it.

tbh, after the meeting I attended, I was willing to give the trust a chance to see if things would change. Dave E definitely paid attention to the points we all made, but then Neil came in and things seem to have gone back to the dark ages (using grendel's twitter altercations with him as a guide...)

I will probably attend the next one to voice my opinion again. (and to vote for grendel to be on the board...) Anyone else?

The trouble is it needs probably 5 or more to stand for the board for there to be any impact, one loan voice will just be outvoted.

SkyBlueCRJ · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
Objectively? Sisu have refused to engage with them from the start and actively worked to discredit them. So the only information they get is from the other side.

Why we need to be careful with any new group not to end up the mirror image that pisses off Wasps and only talks to Sisu.

All the way through it’s been biased info from one of two sides. Even the papers have taken sides.

What so by that logic they have to blindly follow a particularly side and can't use their initiative to establish a position for themselves. Simply using the excuse of 'well SISU refuse to engage with us so we're going to take everything Wasps say as gospel' is an idiotic POV really.

shmmeee · Jan 14, 2020

SkyBlueCRJ said:
What so by that logic they have to blindly follow a particularly side and can't use their initiative to establish a position for themselves. Simply using the excuse of 'well SISU refuse to engage with us so we're going to take everything Wasps say as gospel' is an idiotic POV really.

Nice objectivity

It’s fairly obvious that if you only hear one side of the story you will develop a biased POV. Not sure what there is to get angry about that.

Nick · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
Nice objectivity

It’s fairly obvious that if you only hear one side of the story you will develop a biased POV. Not sure what there is to get angry about that.

Should a Fans Trust who never poll their members use their board member's bias to make statements?

SkyBlueCRJ · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
Nice objectivity

It’s fairly obvious that if you only hear one side of the story you will develop a biased POV. Not sure what there is to get angry about that.

I'm not calling you idiotic I'm calling the trust's POV idiotic.

Is it obvious though? Again you seem to be supporting the notion that they have to blindly follow one aggressor, which subsequently accredits the claim that they're either idiots or pandering to Wasps for some weird sense of approval or free tickets.

Many posters on Sky Blue Talk have heard the same rhetoric from Wasps yet they're educated enough to realise that the agendas they push are neither genuine or truthful. I.e. Indemnity/Drop The Legals. Plus lets be honest the Trust haven't heard the same one side of the story do they. Why just because they apparently talk to Wasps that they are suddenly completely innocent in this whole mess? That just says to me the Trust are easily manipulated. Like I said that seems a bit bizarre.

It's not like nothing comes out from the club either regarding this whole situation so how are they just hearing one side of the story. CCFC put a statement out in the summer and have made repeated comments regarding the Ricoh debacle since last summer and even SISU put out a statement. So, surely rather than only hear one side of the story they actually just ignore certain aspects to fit their arguments and agendas? Plus I'm sure the Trust speak to people at the club and if they don't it's clearly out of choice. Dave Boddy is extremely amenable and as a result I believe he would happily speak to them if asked.

shmmeee · Jan 14, 2020

SkyBlueCRJ said:
I'm not calling you idiotic I'm calling the trust's POV idiotic.

Is it obvious though? Again you seem to be supporting the notion that they have to blindly follow one aggressor, which subsequently accredits the claim that they're either idiots or pandering to Wasps for some weird sense of approval or free tickets.

Many posters on Sky Blue Talk have heard the same rhetoric from Wasps yet they're educated enough to realise that the agendas they push are neither genuine or truthful. I.e. Indemnity/Drop The Legals. Plus lets be honest the Trust haven't heard the same one side of the story do they. Why just because they apparently talk to Wasps that they are suddenly completely innocent in this whole mess? That just says to me the Trust are easily manipulated. Like I said that seems a bit bizarre.

It's not like nothing comes out from the club either regarding this whole situation so how are they just hearing one side of the story. CCFC put a statement out in the summer and have made repeated comments regarding the Ricoh debacle since last summer and even SISU put out a statement. So, surely rather than only hear one side of the story they actually just ignore certain aspects to fit their arguments and agendas? Plus I'm sure the Trust speak to people at the club and if they don't it's clearly out of choice. Dave Boddy is extremely amenable and as a result I believe he would happily speak to them if asked.

I can’t speak for them. I just know at the start the relationship between club/Sisu and the Trust was very frosty. This is before Boddy arrived. So they started off and only CCC would talk to them.

I think you’re right that they probably need to reset and try again, though Joy and Tim are still the organ grinders and many of the characters at the Trust are the same.

As I say I think it’s too far gone at this point to reconcile. A new group with new faces hopefully can reset relationships on all sides. Of course now why would Wasps engage if the Trust are already there?

It’s a mess.

MusicDating · Jan 14, 2020

Sign the Petition

SkyBlueCRJ · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
I can’t speak for them. I just know at the start the relationship between club/Sisu and the Trust was very frosty. This is before Boddy arrived. So they started off and only CCC would talk to them.

I think you’re right that they probably need to reset and try again, though Joy and Tim are still the organ grinders and many of the characters at the Trust are the same.

As I say I think it’s too far gone at this point to reconcile. A new group with new faces hopefully can reset relationships on all sides. Of course now why would Wasps engage if the Trust are already there?

It’s a mess.

I'm sure it was. SISU don't play well with others that's not exactly news. Their blind hate of SISU has clouded their vision with Wasps though and like I said that either makes them idiots or easily manipulated.

But this is what I'm getting at with my point. If the board members of the Trust don't have the intelligence/initiative to separate SISU from the club and continue to paint them with the same brush then there has to be a massive change or a new group has to be established. As in their current form they don't/can't represent the best interests or views on the fans due to their entrenched biases and agendas.

Does it matter if we engage with Wasps? What purpose would it serve to the situation in its current form? Even if in an ideal world the Sky Blue Trust was disbanded and a new group arose, Wasps would try and employ the exact same manipulation tactics as they did with the Trust. There wouldn't be a need for a new group to engage with Wasps unless by some miracle relations are repaired. Instead time and resources would be better spent by leaving the club to deal with Wasps and use the group to unite and more importantly educate the fanbase to support the club rather than work against it. This is all hypothetical anyway and is what the current Trust should be doing so it's pointless discussing it.

AndreasB · Jan 14, 2020

Ha Ha, no I'm still here. I was pretty horrible a lot of the time on this forum so have learned lessons and a nicer online person etc.
However, in my posting days this forum was overwhelmingly Pro - Council and Trust. Good to see its a lot more balanced now.... and I still stand by everything I said about the Trust and their craven behaviour. They are essentially the same as when they were actively trying to send the club into administration. How they can still claim to have 2700 active members who paid a pound (when we were in Northampton) is extremely misleading.

SlowerThanPlatt said:
AndreasB - blast from the past. Has he came back under a new name?

shmmeee · Jan 14, 2020

SkyBlueCRJ said:
I'm sure it was. SISU don't play well with others that's not exactly news. Their blind hate of SISU has clouded their vision with Wasps though and like I said that either makes them idiots or easily manipulated.

But this is what I'm getting at with my point. If the board members of the Trust don't have the intelligence/initiative to separate SISU from the club and continue to paint them with the same brush then there has to be a massive change or a new group has to be established. As in their current form they don't/can't represent the best interests or views on the fans due to their entrenched biases and agendas.

Does it matter if we engage with Wasps? What purpose would it serve to the situation in its current form? Even if in an ideal world the Sky Blue Trust was disbanded and a new group arose, Wasps would try and employ the exact same manipulation tactics as they did with the Trust. There wouldn't be a need for a new group to engage with Wasps unless by some miracle relations are repaired. Instead time and resources would be better spent by leaving the club to deal with Wasps and use the group to unite and more importantly educate the fanbase to support the club rather than work against it. This is all hypothetical anyway and is what the current Trust should be doing so it's pointless discussing it.

But then we just become and anti-Trust. Sisu use us like Wasps use The Trust and it’s just two groups shouting at each other.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think the long game is to be actively involved and change the Trust direction and open it up a bit.

Nick · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
But then we just become and anti-Trust. Sisu use us like Wasps use The Trust and it’s just two groups shouting at each other.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think the long game is to be actively involved and change the Trust direction and open it up a bit.

Wouldn't really, you can still back the club and not be manipulated by any of the others.

SkyBlueCRJ · Jan 14, 2020

shmmeee said:
But then we just become and anti-Trust. Sisu use us like Wasps use The Trust and it’s just two groups shouting at each other.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I do think the long game is to be actively involved and change the Trust direction and open it up a bit.

Why would that happen? Again you're claiming that a Trust has to blindly follow one side. A new Trust would be independent of thinking and hold all sides to account.

rob9872 · Jan 14, 2020

Nick said:
Wouldn't really, you can still back the club and not be manipulated by any of the others.

Yeah particularly as I have conflicted loyalties as a poster on here, a member of the trusts 2700 strong army, member of L&W supporters and the B&N supporters.

shmmeee · Jan 14, 2020

Nick said:
Wouldn't really, you can still back the club and not be manipulated by any of the others.

Sorry mate I disagree. No matter how objective you think you can be it’s just human nature that if you only hear from one group of people you become biased towards their POV. That’s what happened with the Trust. They didn’t wake up one morning and go “oh well be biased towards Wasps” and equally despite how fun it is to say they aren’t especially stupid or gullible. They’re humans and that’s what happens with humans fed a diet of biased info. Garbage in garbage out.

shmmeee · Jan 14, 2020

SkyBlueCRJ said:
Why would that happen? Again you're claiming that a Trust has to blindly follow one side. A new Trust would be independent of thinking and hold all sides to account.

See above reply to Nick. You’re misunderstanding my point, either intentionally or not.

What a shock... the trust "speak up" (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency