Only 3 weeks away, apparently, but you wouldn’t know as they don’t seem to make much mention in the lead-up.
Almost as though they don’t want folk to be interested…
Almost as though they don’t want folk to be interested…
Thing is, Mullen had responses from approx 60 folk over several platforms, but they seemed to focus on 18 folk who voted on the Poll on here.
60 being more than the 47 who voted in or 26 who attended the AGM!
60 being more than the 47 who voted in or 26 who attended the AGM!
BA - "Discussions over next few weeks should bring conclusion to two years of succession and debt issues".
Is he having a bloody giraffe! Funny bar steward.
Is he having a bloody giraffe! Funny bar steward.
That’s exactly the thing CCU, it was 65 against and 2 for (being Mark Middling & a Cambridge supporter)
As said before, people bothered to write replies but the trusts reply just showed the arrogance of them.
I found the old guard very very defensive and unable to accept criticism. Mark middling did and that’s why I said I was pleased with his answers. I do give praise when necessary!
I haven’t had any replies to my extra questions yet and I believe CCU hasn’t had the link sent yet.
As said before, people bothered to write replies but the trusts reply just showed the arrogance of them.
I found the old guard very very defensive and unable to accept criticism. Mark middling did and that’s why I said I was pleased with his answers. I do give praise when necessary!
I haven’t had any replies to my extra questions yet and I believe CCU hasn’t had the link sent yet.
Thing is, Mullen had responses from approx 60 folk over several platforms, but they seemed to focus on 18 folk who voted on the Poll on here.
Probably because this forum is still seen as the "main" one. Another reason we should be looking at parity with the messageboards, and the footymad one having more of a role at the CUSG meetings (1 mod from here, 1 mod from footymad seems to be a fair setup). And when thekessler.net is launched obviously that will hold polls on this kind of thing as well.
They are either deluded or don't care what others think .
I don’t think they care and I think that’s why a lot of people think they are arrogant.
I didn’t like Fred Story as a person, he got up to some well I’ll leave it there.
But he was the best owner we’ve had in a generation really.
The trust thought he was wrongly some pariah which was entirely wrong and lied in court. The trust should have ended then.
Now they aren’t relevant with constant gaffes and past history.
But he was the best owner we’ve had in a generation really.
The trust thought he was wrongly some pariah which was entirely wrong and lied in court. The trust should have ended then.
Now they aren’t relevant with constant gaffes and past history.
I sent my email, with extra questions on Sunday night and I haven’t received a reply, not even an acknowledgment.
So this is why I have to go through cusg as it’s not the 1st time I’ve had no reply to direct questions. So if you’re reading Mr Middling and want time to breathe, it may be best to reply to peoples emails eh!
So this is why I have to go through cusg as it’s not the 1st time I’ve had no reply to direct questions. So if you’re reading Mr Middling and want time to breathe, it may be best to reply to peoples emails eh!
Piss people off and slag them at every single opportunity and then be surprised if they ignore you.
Amazing.
Amazing.
What a stupid reply HS! It was a dig at me but there’s loads that criticise the trust.
They complain at the number of questions each month and suggest other ways. You use the other ways and they don’t reply - hence get slagged off as you put it.
I’ve actually been defensive of the trust this year apart from pizzagate, reunitedfundgate and unscrupulousgate.
They complain at the number of questions each month and suggest other ways. You use the other ways and they don’t reply - hence get slagged off as you put it.
I’ve actually been defensive of the trust this year apart from pizzagate, reunitedfundgate and unscrupulousgate.
Don't mention Gates Mullen as you know that land has been an issue with them in the past allegedly
Forgot about that Bob
Maybe I’m different but if someone criticises my work I make sure I do the damn hardest to put it right.
Just today I had an issue with a client as one of my calculations was wrong. I didn’t ignore them, I made sure I corrected it and offered a discount on next month’s subscription - client happy and renewed for a year!
It was the old Carlisle United way to ignore all criticism. This has got a lot better with Clibbens but it looks like the trust has taken over the mantle.
Maybe I’m different but if someone criticises my work I make sure I do the damn hardest to put it right.
Just today I had an issue with a client as one of my calculations was wrong. I didn’t ignore them, I made sure I corrected it and offered a discount on next month’s subscription - client happy and renewed for a year!
It was the old Carlisle United way to ignore all criticism. This has got a lot better with Clibbens but it looks like the trust has taken over the mantle.
I’m quite pleased the trust aren’t St. John’s ambulance volunteers. It would take them a week before they decide to come and look at you.
If this supposed takeover is to take place in the coming weeks, and John Jackson and Day are to remain invisible, who will be leading the press conference? Holdsworth?
If this supposed takeover is to take place in the coming weeks, and John Jackson and Day are to remain invisible, who will be leading the press conference? Holdsworth?
If EWM does eventually take over CUFC i`m sure Holdsworth who is Days mate will be fronting all day to day operations at the club and we still won`t hear a word from Mr Day.
Answers received today.
Dear Richard
Answers to your questions can be found below.
Regards
Alastair Woodcock
Secretary
CUOSC
A trust member who has attended your meeting has mentioned the below, please comment.
“Their meetings are disorganised and the chair of meetings allows micro meetings and it goes poor. Loses it points.”
ANSWER:
We try to do our best to ensure that meetings stay on track and are able to provide enough time and focus for each agenda item, we felt this was largely the case for the AGM despite there not being enough time to take all of your questions (our apologies, we will endeavour to answer any questions emailed to us that we didn’t get chance to answer). However, the nature of members meetings, as with many meetings of this type with many participants, are susceptible to going off track as many participants have different priorities and questions. We will take this on board and do our best to keep on track in future.
Why do certain members of the trust use the term “we are only volunteers” I personally volunteer at a number of things and never use this excuse and I am held accountable. Can you see this term gets peoples backs up as if you haven’t the time, don’t do the job - remember you put yourself up for the position and were elected. We don’t necessarily need quick answers and understand this, but IMO this term is used to try to stop criticism!
ANSWER:
This comment was purposefully made for a number of reasons in the face of some discourteous critism.
Where we do our best to ensure we carry out our roles as professionally as we can. However, the very nature of a volunteer organisation means that we do not operate as efficiently as, say, a business given that this is something that we do alongside family life, work and other commitments. While we are more than happy to be accountable, please remember that by the very nature of the organisation, we will, at times, be a little less efficient that we would ideally like.
It was also used in an attempt to humanise us. We are real people, not just names behind emails. You are right that this is our choice to freely give our time to the task, but we ask that questions and comments are phrased in a respectful manner that the person asking the questions would be happy to receive them. We feel that we have some good, new blood on the committee and we do not want anyone to leave, or anyone else be put off joining due to unnecessary accusations or insults. We welcome critism, we are more than happy to be accountable and would like to stress that constructive critism and questions asked in an appropriate manner (as in this email) will be answered as fully as we are able.
I feel that the meeting held re “unscrupulous gate” was fair and good however I won’t go back on my “dirty work” comment as Billy could have emailed directly - why didn’t he? I felt the message received was dodgy, so do others. I don’t apologise for any offence regarding this.
ANSWER:
Billy led the board discussion on this one, which is why Jack said that it was him that wanted more evidence. However we would like to comment that it was the unanimous view of all board members that the evidence provided was not strong enough for us to take the matter further. We reiterate that no one is doing anyone’s ‘dirty work’, and any formal response made by the board is discussed and agreed by the board, and not dictated by one individual, no matter the position of that individual.
Did Jim Mitchell go through re education?
ANSWER:
We consider that private and as we have previously stated, the whole matter is now closed and we will not be commenting further.
Who funds the diversity re education program that a trust member attended?
ANSWER:
FSA/Kick It Out
ANSWER (from Frank Beattie):
Just firstly to establish one thing, I will only be on the board for one more year.
It is my intention to stand down next year. There are a lot of things to accomplish in that time.
My energy and experience will be used in that time to drive forward to fruition the various projects that we are currently working on and to develop new ideas.
Dear Richard
Answers to your questions can be found below.
Regards
Alastair Woodcock
Secretary
CUOSC
A trust member who has attended your meeting has mentioned the below, please comment.
“Their meetings are disorganised and the chair of meetings allows micro meetings and it goes poor. Loses it points.”
ANSWER:
We try to do our best to ensure that meetings stay on track and are able to provide enough time and focus for each agenda item, we felt this was largely the case for the AGM despite there not being enough time to take all of your questions (our apologies, we will endeavour to answer any questions emailed to us that we didn’t get chance to answer). However, the nature of members meetings, as with many meetings of this type with many participants, are susceptible to going off track as many participants have different priorities and questions. We will take this on board and do our best to keep on track in future.
Why do certain members of the trust use the term “we are only volunteers” I personally volunteer at a number of things and never use this excuse and I am held accountable. Can you see this term gets peoples backs up as if you haven’t the time, don’t do the job - remember you put yourself up for the position and were elected. We don’t necessarily need quick answers and understand this, but IMO this term is used to try to stop criticism!
ANSWER:
This comment was purposefully made for a number of reasons in the face of some discourteous critism.
Where we do our best to ensure we carry out our roles as professionally as we can. However, the very nature of a volunteer organisation means that we do not operate as efficiently as, say, a business given that this is something that we do alongside family life, work and other commitments. While we are more than happy to be accountable, please remember that by the very nature of the organisation, we will, at times, be a little less efficient that we would ideally like.
It was also used in an attempt to humanise us. We are real people, not just names behind emails. You are right that this is our choice to freely give our time to the task, but we ask that questions and comments are phrased in a respectful manner that the person asking the questions would be happy to receive them. We feel that we have some good, new blood on the committee and we do not want anyone to leave, or anyone else be put off joining due to unnecessary accusations or insults. We welcome critism, we are more than happy to be accountable and would like to stress that constructive critism and questions asked in an appropriate manner (as in this email) will be answered as fully as we are able.
I feel that the meeting held re “unscrupulous gate” was fair and good however I won’t go back on my “dirty work” comment as Billy could have emailed directly - why didn’t he? I felt the message received was dodgy, so do others. I don’t apologise for any offence regarding this.
ANSWER:
Billy led the board discussion on this one, which is why Jack said that it was him that wanted more evidence. However we would like to comment that it was the unanimous view of all board members that the evidence provided was not strong enough for us to take the matter further. We reiterate that no one is doing anyone’s ‘dirty work’, and any formal response made by the board is discussed and agreed by the board, and not dictated by one individual, no matter the position of that individual.
Did Jim Mitchell go through re education?
ANSWER:
We consider that private and as we have previously stated, the whole matter is now closed and we will not be commenting further.
Who funds the diversity re education program that a trust member attended?
ANSWER:
FSA/Kick It Out
ANSWER (from Frank Beattie):
Just firstly to establish one thing, I will only be on the board for one more year.
It is my intention to stand down next year. There are a lot of things to accomplish in that time.
My energy and experience will be used in that time to drive forward to fruition the various projects that we are currently working on and to develop new ideas.
I think this proves my point
“ Billy led the board discussion on this one, which is why Jack said that it was him that wanted more evidence.”
“ Billy led the board discussion on this one, which is why Jack said that it was him that wanted more evidence.”
Not sure if there is one but the trust need a mission statement as to their aims and some kind of achievement driven focus over a period say 5 years with the reasonable desires of both their membership/all fans/club input to set out some desired goals.
There are of course both upsides and downsides to the above.
There are of course both upsides and downsides to the above.
They had, previously, a 5 year plan and achieved none of their goals.
And the same people still remain.
And the same people still remain.
Looks to me like CUOSC is mainly a vehicle for two people to help deliver their personal goals. And I am not meaning the two board directors.
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Online Users
Markovitch
, carlisleunited
, nobbyblue
, nomadblue2
, bluealf
, triskelionblue
, Dancingbear
, Fenwayblue
, topstepwhinger
, redders71
, CUFC_1996
and 528 other guests