CUSG Meeting - Mon 1st July 19

No response from CUOSC to all them questions is [censored] disgraceful!
They don't deserve any members and people should withdraw their membership

Well done CCU for going you deserve a medal!

You can start by learning to spell response. Seriously though are the trust not in negligence of their 25.4% stake?

Nothing against CCU or mouldy attending - the club needs more like them.

But seriously we need another vote on here! Up to this month I’d be a definite yes to go. Now it’s a no you’re wasting your time and it’ll send a message if the vote is not to go!

Just like Deano before them - I reckon the integrity is there to get answers and try to improve things but just seems like the trust are so joined to the board that anything said is met with deaf ears or replied to with a politicians answer.

Dancingbear wrote: You can start by learning to spell response. Seriously though are the trust not in negligence of their 25.4% stake?

That's how you spell response isn't it?

Mush wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: You can start by learning to spell response. Seriously though are the trust not in negligence of their 25.4% stake?

That's how you spell response isn't it?

Tell Mullen then

CCU wrote: CUOSC have now sent their answers over, they’ll get added to the document shortly.

Seems they sent them on to an old email address used by CUFCDeano for the site!

Surely they just have to reply?

Noticed this bit

John Kukuc explained that an email sent by Jim Mitchell, the 1921 Board rep, to a member had not apparently arrived in his inbox. The issue had been exaggerated and there was no technical problem at CUOSC's end.

If there were no technical problems then why did flumeblue claim there was? He says he saw Jim's reply, and that he was aware of issues with Jim's email. And nobody exaggerated anything on here, we just asked for an explanation, so why have they twisted what actually happened and instead provided this alternative narrative where the fans are unreasonable for asking questions. The utter contempt they seem to have for anyone who criticizes is very clear to see.

CCU wrote: CUOSC have now sent their answers over, they’ll get added to the document shortly.
Seems they sent them on to an old email address used by CUFCDeano for the site!

Like I said before legitimate email problems can happen from time to time, but this is now the second time in a couple of weeks the Trust have claimed that an email issue prevented them from answering questions. At what point do we stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and look at the other possibility that it's just excuses?

Answers aren’t there yet???? If it takes a while then Kessler is right to have suspicions.

We all make mistakes, give them the benefit, but seems an odd thing to do, send to an old address. Just hit the reply button.

Again can cusg organise an email session?

As for the DSG, meh!

CCU wrote: Give me a chance ffs!

Just read your post CCU - that’s fine.

Funny also the dsg have just responded, after I sent them an email. Again though the committee not that I’m a member so doesn’t bother me anymore weren’t consulted.

It really isn’t rocket science!

First, sorry folks but I am having a really shit attack of vertigo today, so struggling with the typing, or even looking at the screen for very long, so won't be posting much.

I have mailed the mods with the DSG answer and thankfully the mods will add it. My fault entirely, I checked the reply Barry was going to give and thought Barry was going to send it in, he thought I was and it didn't get posted. Really sorry, my fault entirely, and particularly bad timing to make a cock up like that, I apologise.

Mullen not really sure what you are getting at with this secretly thing?

"As for Bumble attending, no issue, but secretly I think she’s wanted to attend. A discussion was had in the dsg to send Julie, nothing was had to send Bumble - for the record I wouldn’t go to it."

I enjoyed the meeting, said my piece on a couple of things , talked too much but also listened. I have no clue where the secretly comes in to it. If I hadn't wanted to go I wouldn't have gone, I wasn't pressganged. If Barry asks me to go to another, I probarbly would, I would amagine others on the board will take the chance to go as well.

I do feel the group needs to change and grow and become more inclusive, so different viewpoints can be heard and people not pre-aligned to other groups get chance to have their say.

Anyways, got to go, a darkened room awaits.

Wtf does This mean, care to expand on why you can’t raise funds?“Beinga part owner of the Club makes it virtually impossible to raise meaningful amounts of money at this point in time.”As an addendum(To the previous question), I would ask "Does the trust mean because of fans' opinions on the other co-owners this is the case?"Answered together -It has been difficult for CUOSC to get financial backing from local businesses in recent times because of succession of ownership issues.Obviously, the more members we have the more money we can raise.

SO what they really want is a handout from local businesses ffs. Utter shambles. I think i know which way id vote if we had another.

I have my suspicions Bumble, but happy to accept the dsg response. As I’ve said I’ve left - I just can’t be arsed anymore.

I’ll take your advise though, life’s too short it’s time to do something else.

The Trust responded to my question about data protection by saying they have uploaded their policy to their website and provided a link. Thanks to them for doing that. Their cookie consent on the website should be opt-in rather than opt-out though, at the moment it just says you will be tracked unless you disable cookies.

They said the most likely explanation of why Waltero didn't receive a reply is because of his ISP which is BT blocking the message from being from a suspected spam source. If that's the case then are they going to contact BT about resolving that? They are an organization where communication with fans is vital to their role, if there is an issue where some fans might not receive a reply that's surely something to be followed up?

I asked what safeguards they take to protect user data if it goes from official trust email accounts to Jims personal email account. They said that emails sent to Jim are forwarded automatically by their domain hosting service to Jim's personal email, from where he replies. They said CUOSC restricts access to members' emails to board members or officers only, unless they have permission from the member concerned. I don't think this was fully answered, when I asked what safeguards were in place I was wondering if they could give specific examples of measures they take. If emails sent to the Trust can be accessed through Jim's personal email, then in an age where everyone is logged into email on their phone does that mean anyone with Jim's phone can see emails sent to the Trust? If so does he ever share his phone with family members, friends etc? Most workplaces will use a BYOD policy (bring your own device) where you can use your personal phone for work matters but you install a security app which lets them remotely lock or wipe it if stolen. Does Jim have any of these safety features on his phone?

Kessler wrote: formatting buggered up, give me a minute to edit.

NO we DEMAND your re-formatted response NOW?!?

munchymagic wrote:

Kessler wrote: formatting buggered up, give me a minute to edit.

NO we DEMAND your re-formatted response NOW?!?

Right, because me spending a few minutes reformatting a post before reposting is literally just as bad as the club systematically ignoring and fobbing off any difficult questions for over a decade.

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote:

Kessler wrote: formatting buggered up, give me a minute to edit.

NO we DEMAND your re-formatted response NOW?!?

Right, because me spending a few minutes reformatting a post before reposting is literally just as bad as the club systematically ignoring and fobbing off any difficult questions for over a decade.

Fair point....

I think I was out of order to Bumble and Barry there and like to apologise, at least for my tone. we all make mistakes and they’ve been answered so that’s the main thing. I thought even by my standards, I was incredibly harsh there.

No excuses but it’s been a difficult week personally. Maybe best to have a break for a bit from here.

Getting back to basics...

I asked the question about the London Branch contributions for reasons of comparison with the Trust’s efforts. Despite the dissembling in the answer it’s quite clear that the LB have continued to contribute to the Club in no small measure since my days with them. £20,000 over three years says it all. I reckon they must have put well over a hundred grand into much needed equipment and support in this century alone, and all without expecting a share in the Club. By comparison the efforts of the Trust are feeble, perhaps I should say non-existent in terms of financial support. And all on the back of money contributed by a third party (BM). The LB raise money through membership contributions and other fund-raising, all to the benefit of the Club. The Trust do nothing but ponce around in the boardroom.

SHAME on the Trust.

SHAME.

Absolutely no offence taken, all the best

Respect Mullen.

griff wrote: Getting back to basics...

I asked the question about the London Branch contributions for reasons of comparison with the Trust’s efforts. Despite the dissembling in the answer it’s quite clear that the LB have continued to contribute to the Club in no small measure since my days with them. £20,000 over three years says it all. I reckon they must have put well over a hundred grand into much needed equipment and support in this century alone, and all without expecting a share in the Club. By comparison the efforts of the Trust are feeble, perhaps I should say non-existent in terms of financial support. And all on the back of money contributed by a third party (BM). The LB raise money through membership contributions and other fund-raising, all to the benefit of the Club. The Trust do nothing but ponce around in the boardroom.

SHAME on the Trust.

SHAME.

Brilliant post Griff

flumeblue wrote: Respect Mullen.

Hi flumeblue. On the club website it says there were no technical problems with CUOSC email and the answer to my question was that it must have been an issue with Waltero's email. But you said you were aware of issues with Jim's email, so surely that suggests the problem is with him? The answer you provided on here seems to contradict the answers given today.

If you look at their website now they do indeed have a Data Protection policy uploaded. Did the Trust actually have any kind of Data Protection policy in place before this, or have they just created it in response to that question being asked? I've only had a quick look at their policy not yet checked it out in detail but initial impression is that it looks a bit like a rush job, there are important bits that should be mentioned that they don't seem to make reference to. It looks almost like someone trying to put together a policy using online GDPR templates. If that's the case then I think it's rather misleading to say the policy was "updated" on 1st July when what they would really mean is that it had been "created" on that date. But if they did have a Data Protection policy prior to this I'd like to see a previous version of it to see exactly what changes/updates were made on the 1st July, and also an explanation for why they chose not to post it on their website until I asked the question.

flumeblue wrote: Respect Mullen.

I was wrong to overreact. Barry isn’t a good communicator but is trying to do some good stuff. The response to the question was really good.

As for the trust I do believe their story. They do normally answer the questions but like a lot of others thought they took the huff. Answers though is another thing, just communicate better, I think that’s all people are asking!

The club always answer, but I thought mush’s question about reputation in the city/county was self explanatory don’t know why it wasn’t understood.

The club is ran poorly and some of the groups are shocking but it is what it is. Life’s too short really to keep worrying about it and the end of the day it’s just football.

They are fairly bombing on with the new scoreboard by the looks of it!

Sounds like they are going for a big telly stuck on the end of the Neil Sports Centre.

What do they actually do on a daily basis at the club. I'd like to be a fly on the wall.

I could sort out and have a scoreboard up next week. And I'm a border line simpleton.

Mullen103 wrote: I have my suspicions Bumble, but happy to accept the dsg response. As I’ve said I’ve left - I just can’t be arsed anymore.

I’ll take your advise though, life’s too short it’s time to do something else.

The "custodians" and CUOSC are not worth getting stressed about now, waste of energy. They've both done a crap job for years now and won't get any better anytime soon. They've ruined a great football club.

nobbyblue wrote: What do they actually do on a daily basis at the club. I'd like to be a fly on the wall.

I could sort out and have a scoreboard up next week. And I'm a border line simpleton.

Borderline ????

Mullen103 wrote: As for the trust I do believe their story. They do normally answer the questions but like a lot of others thought they took the huff. Answers though is another thing, just communicate better, I think that’s all people are asking!

Yep. It's not asking a lot and it's not difficult. Just answer questions fully to the best of your ability. If you aren't sure, then admit it. I don't expect the Trust to be perfect, we're all human at the end of the day. But I do expect them to be transparent with the fans. They say they are here to represent the fans, but in order to to do that they actually need to listen and take on board the criticism. Not get defensive and take it personally.

So, the simple answer to why the Trust don't raise any money is, no one will give them any.

It's a matter of Trust really.............

"Answered together - It has been difficult for CUOSC to get financial backing from local businesses
in recent times because of succession of ownership issues. Obviously, the more members we
have the more money we can raise."

Why on earth would anyone want to join the Trust. A totally disfunctional outfit in the pocket of Jenkins & Co.
Nobody is going to give them money.They will have to get off their butts & proactively go about raising funds.
If the London Branch can do it then why can't the Trust?
Perhaps we should have a Supporters Club completely separate from the Trust and not in the pockets of the "custodians"?

Arragorn wrote: Why on earth would anyone want to join the Trust. A totally disfunctional outfit in the pocket of Jenkins & Co.
Nobody is going to give them money.They will have to get off their butts & proactively go about raising funds.
If the London Branch can do it then why can't the Trust?
Perhaps we should have a Supporters Club completely separate from the Trust and not in the pockets of the "custodians"?

The club claimed on their website that the email issue has been "exaggerated". I don't think it has, people just asked for an explanation which we never really got. But I think that says it all about the board and the trusts attitude to the fans right now. They keep saying they want to communicate with us and listen to us, but if you ask a difficult question they'll just dismiss it and say you are just exaggerating a non issue. I think the email issue was very important, because if fans don't get a reply from the organization who supposedly listens to their concerns and represents them, that issue has to be addressed.

Also interesting that the club are now saying there was no problem with email on CUOSC's end, despite flumeblue telling us on here he was aware of problems with Jim's email. So are the club saying that flumeblue is a liar, is he saying that the club are lying? They can't seem to decide what their story is, there are so many inconsistencies that they refuse to properly account for, this is why it's hard to believe a word they say right now.

Simply put, the Trust are not fulfilling their obligations to represent the fans.