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…
For clarification I’m not taking back the “dirty work comment”
The message regarding getting information for Billy, posted here, sickened me and I no longer trusted them.
No issues with the meeting or afterwards, although I did get messaged to provide evidence and reminded - but no issues. No issues if it was voluntary by those two.
I understand KS was on holiday and the reason JO jumped out the message group and DM himself. But it’s still dodgy he weren’t included and also dodgy the message received.
Jack may not be the lapdog but getting involved in this and that message suggests the opposite.
I’m not apologising for my actions at all or what I’ve said. I totally believe I was buttered up with probable good intentions but the whole purpose of the whole thing was to get this evidence.
Not once, NOT ONCE, has the trust got in touch regarding any question I have asked them on here. But some felt they had to on this one mmmmm
The message regarding getting information for Billy, posted here, sickened me and I no longer trusted them.
No issues with the meeting or afterwards, although I did get messaged to provide evidence and reminded - but no issues. No issues if it was voluntary by those two.
I understand KS was on holiday and the reason JO jumped out the message group and DM himself. But it’s still dodgy he weren’t included and also dodgy the message received.
Jack may not be the lapdog but getting involved in this and that message suggests the opposite.
I’m not apologising for my actions at all or what I’ve said. I totally believe I was buttered up with probable good intentions but the whole purpose of the whole thing was to get this evidence.
Not once, NOT ONCE, has the trust got in touch regarding any question I have asked them on here. But some felt they had to on this one mmmmm
So, why don't those complaining put themelves up for election to the Trust Board with the aim of doing something practical and proactive to remedy the situation as they see it?
Why don’t the Trust invite folk to stand ahead of the AGM like they’re supposed to?
You never see them do so…
If all the trust resigned I’d stand tomorrow.
Problem is the old guard remain so you can’t change the direction.
The trust also changed their constitution to allow for infinite years of being on the trust board when previously there was a limit and that was it.
Problem is the old guard remain so you can’t change the direction.
The trust also changed their constitution to allow for infinite years of being on the trust board when previously there was a limit and that was it.
Mr Prokas, what is this 50 hours you quote actually spent on? I don't recall the Trust answering hardly any of the questions at the CUSG meetings.
Certainly nothing about the money you spunked on a bar refurb meant to help the running of the club, why the Trust are so shit at raising money (you know, as the 25% owners of the club), who gave you authorisation to call yourselves the official supporters club, and why you have allowed the club to be run by potless and unethical people (your sole purpose for existence according to your articles).
More often than not it seems to be a no response received.
Certainly nothing about the money you spunked on a bar refurb meant to help the running of the club, why the Trust are so shit at raising money (you know, as the 25% owners of the club), who gave you authorisation to call yourselves the official supporters club, and why you have allowed the club to be run by potless and unethical people (your sole purpose for existence according to your articles).
More often than not it seems to be a no response received.
So, why don't those complaining put themelves up for election to the Trust Board with the aim of doing something practical and proactive to remedy the situation as they see it?
Why don’t the Trust invite folk to stand ahead of the AGM like they’re supposed to?
You never see them do so…
They never this year! - they used to do it but can’t remember last year.
They didn’t mention the AGM, in their briefings, to the week before.
I attended the trust agm, I didn’t get to ask even half of my questions because it overran.
Re the trust fit for purpose query - it was answered that it wasn’t a true proper number as the trust has 400+ members therefore the negativity doesn’t represent the feelings of supporters.
Wouldn’t give us an answer if they support EWM as it could cause issues
Didn’t have time to ask about unscrupulous gate. Person will see Billy next week (person thought shop was shut as the shutters were down) I’ll send them my evidence with my other questions probably tonight.
Quite impressed with Mark middling says a lot of good stuff that the older lot refuse to say. Has good ideas so will wait with interest
Re the trust fit for purpose query - it was answered that it wasn’t a true proper number as the trust has 400+ members therefore the negativity doesn’t represent the feelings of supporters.
Wouldn’t give us an answer if they support EWM as it could cause issues
Didn’t have time to ask about unscrupulous gate. Person will see Billy next week (person thought shop was shut as the shutters were down) I’ll send them my evidence with my other questions probably tonight.
Quite impressed with Mark middling says a lot of good stuff that the older lot refuse to say. Has good ideas so will wait with interest
You did better than me Richard. I tried a couple of times to ask questions, waited patiently until the end after being told they would take questions at the end, only for the meeting to be wound up.
Two hours of my life I won't get back!
I think that was disappointing, I gave them respect for only asking questions relevant to the topic they were talking about at the time, but had plenty for the general and it was shut down.
It was overrunning but we sat through their agenda so you’d thought they could have sat through our general questions. I’ll send them them though and publish on here.
The question about fundraising was interesting from the London branch, I liked him, as surely the trust and supporters club raises funds - who else does.
Noticed Billy sly dig at the messsgeboard that not many people post on it - it has a lot more than the 47 that voted at this AGM.
They sidetracked the question about the “fit for purpose” as not indicative of the supporters. IMO this was bad as enough supporters replied with their reasonings but they didn’t want to know.
Impressed with Kyle and Mark. But I’m not convinced Mark isn’t just using the trust for his doctorate. I really hope not because he has good ideas and plans which I agree with.
But it did feel like a wasted two hours. I thought AGMs had unlimited time until everything was covered.
I’ve got a few days to decide, but at the moment there’s no way I’m joining yet - I’m going to wait until they do what they said in the meeting re engagement and communications.
Agree if they had more meetings they’d be no need for so many questions in one go.
Agree if they had more meetings they’d be no need for so many questions in one go.
The numbers say it all.
47 folk voted this year. Approx 11% of the Membership?
Just over 20 were on the Meeting, 11 of whom make up the CUOSC Board. Approx 5% of the Membership?
I’d love to know who the 40 or so who always vote ‘Yes’ are? Must be the Board and their families!
47 folk voted this year. Approx 11% of the Membership?
Just over 20 were on the Meeting, 11 of whom make up the CUOSC Board. Approx 5% of the Membership?
I’d love to know who the 40 or so who always vote ‘Yes’ are? Must be the Board and their families!
I find it odd that the trust complained about the negativity of the “fit for purpose” survey as they called it because it didn’t cover a big enough fan base.
Yet they think the supporters support them when only 40 (no idea who these people are) vote for them!
Unbelievable really
Yet they think the supporters support them when only 40 (no idea who these people are) vote for them!
Unbelievable really
I find it odd that the trust complained about the negativity of the “fit for purpose” survey as they called it because it didn’t cover a big enough fan base.
What did they say about it?
Fair enough the amount of people voting isn't enough that it represents all fans. But literally NOBODY voted in favour of them. The poll doesn't even set a high standard for the Trust to meet, it's not asking are they doing exceptionally well. It's basically asking are the Trust competent enough in carrying out their role, and not a single supporter seems to think they are.
Jim, Billy, instead of moaning about negativity how about you create accounts on here and discuss with the fans what you can do to make us believe the Trust are fit for purpose?
I find it odd that the trust complained about the negativity of the “fit for purpose” survey as they called it because it didn’t cover a big enough fan base.
What did they say about it?
Fair enough the amount of people voting isn't enough that it represents all fans. But literally NOBODY voted in favour of them. The poll doesn't even set a high standard for the Trust to meet, it's not asking are they doing exceptionally well. It's basically asking are the Trust competent enough in carrying out their role, and not a single supporter seems to think they are.
Jim, Billy, instead of moaning about negativity how about you create accounts on here and discuss with the fans what you can do to make us believe the Trust are fit for purpose?
Basically ignored it! Just 18 they commented on here but didn’t take into account other avenues.
Not indicative of supporters
Ignoring it or denying (say it’s not indicative of the whole support) is arrogance that many commented on IMO.
People bothered to reply to my post, none were my comments and to be denied a feasible comment and told your not indicative of the overall support was disappointing.
This I felt was more the old guard, Mark did comment a little on it and did on Facebook, although not many agreed, he did come on.
40 votes for out of 47 is ok have support.
65 out of 67 say trust not fit for purpose - not indicative of support
The trust have 400 members which is a fair point but only 47 vote.
People bothered to reply to my post, none were my comments and to be denied a feasible comment and told your not indicative of the overall support was disappointing.
This I felt was more the old guard, Mark did comment a little on it and did on Facebook, although not many agreed, he did come on.
40 votes for out of 47 is ok have support.
65 out of 67 say trust not fit for purpose - not indicative of support
The trust have 400 members which is a fair point but only 47 vote.
I had already binned my notes and don't feel like rummaging through the recycling to find them
Think we have found a bit of common ground at last Bumble. I like recycling and not enough people do it. The Earth will be around for a lot longer than us and we should be taking much better care of it than we do right now, for future generations.
I never received an email 
I had others but can’t be bothered to write!
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.”
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!
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.
Addition - I’m happy to send evidence, for info the evidence didn’t come from BA! The verbal evidence did and XXXX is going to meet Billy at his shop once Billy returns from holiday. Once this meeting has occurred I’ll send the info with names etc.
Did Jim Mitchell go through re education?
Who funds the diversity re education program that a trust member attended?
What does Frank feel he can bring to the trust in his next 3 years that he hasn’t in his time on the board?
I have follow up questions re the AGM that will be asked via cusg. Not as many as 20
I had others but can’t be bothered to write!
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.”
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!
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.
Addition - I’m happy to send evidence, for info the evidence didn’t come from BA! The verbal evidence did and XXXX is going to meet Billy at his shop once Billy returns from holiday. Once this meeting has occurred I’ll send the info with names etc.
Did Jim Mitchell go through re education?
Who funds the diversity re education program that a trust member attended?
What does Frank feel he can bring to the trust in his next 3 years that he hasn’t in his time on the board?
I have follow up questions re the AGM that will be asked via cusg. Not as many as 20
2 hours of sitting through their AGM where they talk about fan engagement and how they are going to have meetings etc, improve communications.
They send out this beauty of proposed meeting dates - they are taking the piss, they have to be taking the piss no one can be this useless.
No dates for any meeting, the most pointless message I’ve ever seen.
I don’t know whether to be really angry or just laugh, I’ll try the latter.
No £10 from me
They send out this beauty of proposed meeting dates - they are taking the piss, they have to be taking the piss no one can be this useless.
No dates for any meeting, the most pointless message I’ve ever seen.
I don’t know whether to be really angry or just laugh, I’ll try the latter.
No £10 from me
2 hours of sitting through their AGM where they talk about fan engagement and how they are going to have meetings etc, improve communications.
They send out this beauty of proposed meeting dates - they are taking the piss, they have to be taking the piss no one can be this useless.
No dates for any meeting, the most pointless message I’ve ever seen.
I don’t know whether to be really angry or just laugh, I’ll try the latter.
No £10 from me
Well, at least that will give them something to celebrate.
2 hours of sitting through their AGM where they talk about fan engagement and how they are going to have meetings etc, improve communications.
They send out this beauty of proposed meeting dates - they are taking the piss, they have to be taking the piss no one can be this useless.
No dates for any meeting, the most pointless message I’ve ever seen.
I don’t know whether to be really angry or just laugh, I’ll try the latter.
No £10 from me
Well, at least that will give them something to celebrate.
I’ve always been critical, but the last year has made we want to bang their heads together.
There’ll be happy I won’t be able to attend meetings, not that they have many, but I bet it increases.
When you have people like Bumble not re joining then there’s issues.
Nice of them to abdicate fund raising duties to CUSG. Ill bet their tireless volunteers will be glad of a rest after all the hard work theyve put in over the years.
Nigel Davidson response – defends Trust. Says 5 year plan had some successes. Questions if 18 people’s views on a messageboard are representative of the wider fanbase? People haven’t said specifically why the Trust is not fit for purpose.
While I accept that 18 people aren't representative of the entire fanbase, I do think it says something that literally NOBODY voted in favour of them. On the most popular club forum, not a single fan felt the Trust are fit for purpose.
While I accept that 18 people aren't representative of the entire fanbase, I do think it says something that literally NOBODY voted in favour of them. On the most popular club forum, not a single fan felt the Trust are fit for purpose.
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
Bumble
, Mush
, triskelionblue
, bob hatton 10
, beefsister
, markredfox73
, heilkmoon
, Graemehud
, shaldon1
, stu
, BlueAl
, MidtableCUFC
, 09sider
, CUFC_1996
, TheMansfieldMoonie
, Rocket
and 889 other guests