CUSG Meeting - Mon 5 Nov 18

Mullen103 wrote: Ok, I don’t know why the messageboard reps couldn’t release this before, but never mind.

Non Execs

I/we know what non execs are. It was a general response on what non execs are. The question asked was what our non exec directors do and hold the club to account.

The trust

Less than 500 members so can’t say they represent anyone. As expected they won’t resign from either board. They say they put their view across but they never get listened too. If they happy to be involved they have to take responsibility for the shit show.

SLO

I’ve said my piece that it should be a paid position with full accountability however as it’s now voluntary why has one person who has been identified been approached without asking supporters?

EWM

So Kevin Dobinson is helping out. Surely an earlier statement should of been released instead of finding out by these minutes.

No surprise the debt to them hasn’t been answered.

Disability issues

We’ve had myself and now Barbara filling in forms. If Barry can’t fill in or hasn’t time is he the right person to lead this group?

I’m sure the away shelter only got done due to the bad press.

Bumble wrote:

Mullen103 wrote: Ok, I don’t know why the messageboard reps couldn’t release this before, but never mind.

Non Execs

I/we know what non execs are. It was a general response on what non execs are. The question asked was what our non exec directors do and hold the club to account.

The trust

Less than 500 members so can’t say they represent anyone. As expected they won’t resign from either board. They say they put their view across but they never get listened too. If they happy to be involved they have to take responsibility for the shit show.

SLO

I’ve said my piece that it should be a paid position with full accountability however as it’s now voluntary why has one person who has been identified been approached without asking supporters?

EWM

So Kevin Dobinson is helping out. Surely an earlier statement should of been released instead of finding out by these minutes.

No surprise the debt to them hasn’t been answered.

Disability issues

We’ve had myself and now Barbara filling in forms. If Barry can’t fill in or hasn’t time is he the right person to lead this group?

I’m sure the away shelter only got done due to the bad press.

There is a lot happening with the disabled facilities at the moment and there is quite a lot more to getting the grant I'm helping with than just filling in a form.

Thankfully, with the help of two people who know a lot more than I about Building regs and practicalities we are moving forward. I am happy to help with this, giving Barry chance to work on other things but he is most definitely in charge.

Dancingbear wrote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would CUSG score yourselves for effectiveness?

Simon responded with the question – would things be better without CUSG?

Surprised no one has picked up on this patronising answer. Did anyone reply with would it be any worse without it? A couple of emails from Alan and also a couple of irate ladies i saw posting on twitter seem to have done more. Ive always said im in favour of the mods representing us but that answer for me is terrible.

Bumble wrote:
Mascots It was a good detailed answer but unfortunately missed out the answer I was looking for. When it was announced that the club were going to charge mascots the reason given was because some of the Junior Blues hadn't had chance to be one.

I was wondering if those Junior Blues had taken up the offer to pay to be mascots, therefore sorting out the problem. Heyho, I wrote several bits to the question and probs confused the issue.

84 mascots gives a return of between 3k and 4k so at least the scheme is in the black. Good to see the guard of honour s popular.

Dancingbear wrote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would CUSG score yourselves for effectiveness?

Simon responded with the question – would things be better without CUSG?

Surprised no one has picked up on this patronising answer. Did anyone reply with would it be any worse without it? A couple of emails from Alan and also a couple of irate ladies i saw posting on twitter seem to have done more. Ive always said im in favour of the mods representing us but that answer for me is terrible.

Alan wrote: Thanks CCU and Mouldy for asking my questions.

Bumble wrote: It's a bit tricky to assume though. I'm sure they will have the info as they will be monitoring it to make sure the Junior Blues who haven't been mascots are taking it up.

I know one who isn't because they could afford it this season but hope they might be able to in the future. The other side of it is chldren not in the Junior Blues also have chance and maybe will come again after a good experience.

It will always feel wrong to me, but I fully appreciate others think it's great, and it isn't costing the club money.

Bumble wrote: I just find it hard to see why the club charges at all.

I fully agree any Junior Blue should get the chance, who wants to be mascot. I just don't see how the money comes in.

This season already we have 23 more mascots than last season. It seems that there are three or four mascots every game this season where last season there was two.

So I don't understand why they didn't just up the numbers to three or four without the charge. That would have surely cleared the backlog as there are still spaces for children going forward.

It seems a shame some kids won't get chance because of finances but that's the way of the world I suppose.

seesaw50 wrote:

Bumble wrote: I just find it hard to see why the club charges at all.

I fully agree any Junior Blue should get the chance, who wants to be mascot. I just don't see how the money comes in.

This season already we have 23 more mascots than last season. It seems that there are three or four mascots every game this season where last season there was two.

So I don't understand why they didn't just up the numbers to three or four without the charge. That would have surely cleared the backlog as there are still spaces for children going forward.

It seems a shame some kids won't get chance because of finances but that's the way of the world I suppose.

It's hard to see how the income from mascots isn't a factor. Like you say the numbers have increased , however they have to apply to be one,so we are probably being cynical bumble.

cufcmike wrote: I think you should maybe take a few days off...

CCU wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote:

CCU wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote: And just to complete matters we now have PD's representative attending as well.
You just could not make Carlisle United up, it would be too far fetched.

There was no mention of PD. Kevin Dobinson said he was an ‘old friend’ of DH from his Gretna days and that was why he’d been helping out...

CCU - and did you challenge this? I have already said on this board he was at the interviews for JS, which was well before DH came on board, so another blatant lie allowed to pass.
If lies are being allowed to pass, what is the point?

I only arrived at the Meeting at 18:15 (Traffic after finishing a 12hr shift!) so didn’t catch all of KD’s talk.

If you say that’s what happened (I recall you mentioning it previously) why not ask yourself, or ask us to ask for you? You say that he’s lieing about his circumstance, then challenge it?

I attend for the Messageboard, so if you have a query, problem, question, I’ll ask it. I’m a messenger for exactly that kind of stuff. I can’t guarantee you’ll like the answer, but I’ll ask it for you!

Dancingbear wrote:

seesaw50 wrote:

Bumble wrote: I just find it hard to see why the club charges at all.

I fully agree any Junior Blue should get the chance, who wants to be mascot. I just don't see how the money comes in.

This season already we have 23 more mascots than last season. It seems that there are three or four mascots every game this season where last season there was two.

So I don't understand why they didn't just up the numbers to three or four without the charge. That would have surely cleared the backlog as there are still spaces for children going forward.

It seems a shame some kids won't get chance because of finances but that's the way of the world I suppose.

It's hard to see how the income from mascots isn't a factor. Like you say the numbers have increased , however they have to apply to be one,so we are probably being cynical bumble.

I know it’s going over old ground but it was great for me to be able to get my son to be mascot on the day of his birthday. The experience if you boil it down to costs would be similar to if you were to pay for the things individually so taking that out of it what you get for free is bloody brilliant. I appreciate not everyone feels that way but the club whilst maybe not losing money aren’t making any either.

Bumble wrote:

Dancingbear wrote:

seesaw50 wrote:

Bumble wrote: I just find it hard to see why the club charges at all.

I fully agree any Junior Blue should get the chance, who wants to be mascot. I just don't see how the money comes in.

This season already we have 23 more mascots than last season. It seems that there are three or four mascots every game this season where last season there was two.

So I don't understand why they didn't just up the numbers to three or four without the charge. That would have surely cleared the backlog as there are still spaces for children going forward.

It seems a shame some kids won't get chance because of finances but that's the way of the world I suppose.

It's hard to see how the income from mascots isn't a factor. Like you say the numbers have increased , however they have to apply to be one,so we are probably being cynical bumble.

I know it’s going over old ground but it was great for me to be able to get my son to be mascot on the day of his birthday. The experience if you boil it down to costs would be similar to if you were to pay for the things individually so taking that out of it what you get for free is bloody brilliant. I appreciate not everyone feels that way but the club whilst maybe not losing money aren’t making any either.

I am really pleased your family enjoyed it. It always has been a really good experience and its doubly so if the whole family are fans. Your point about the cost though only works if you aren't a season ticket holder. If a fan has saved all year to buy a season ticket for themselves and child, who is then a junior blue. Then it's another £40 to pay. They don't need tickets on the day. So they are getting a worse deal than a casual supporter.

Alan wrote:

Bumble wrote:

Dancingbear wrote:

seesaw50 wrote:

Bumble wrote: I just find it hard to see why the club charges at all.

I fully agree any Junior Blue should get the chance, who wants to be mascot. I just don't see how the money comes in.

This season already we have 23 more mascots than last season. It seems that there are three or four mascots every game this season where last season there was two.

So I don't understand why they didn't just up the numbers to three or four without the charge. That would have surely cleared the backlog as there are still spaces for children going forward.

It seems a shame some kids won't get chance because of finances but that's the way of the world I suppose.

It's hard to see how the income from mascots isn't a factor. Like you say the numbers have increased , however they have to apply to be one,so we are probably being cynical bumble.

I know it’s going over old ground but it was great for me to be able to get my son to be mascot on the day of his birthday. The experience if you boil it down to costs would be similar to if you were to pay for the things individually so taking that out of it what you get for free is bloody brilliant. I appreciate not everyone feels that way but the club whilst maybe not losing money aren’t making any either.

I am really pleased your family enjoyed it. It always has been a really good experience and its doubly so if the whole family are fans. Your point about the cost though only works if you aren't a season ticket holder. If a fan has saved all year to buy a season ticket for themselves and child, who is then a junior blue. Then it's another £40 to pay. They don't need tickets on the day. So they are getting a worse deal than a casual supporter.

What you say is correct Bumble but the same can be said against matchday discounts for casual fans against season ticket holders.
At least now every Carlisle United supporting child has a chance to become a mascot for the day not just junior blues and season ticket holders.
The idea is superb and reaching out to young blues who normally would have a cat in hells chance of getting involved in this.
Don't want to be controversial but I have my doubts wether the previous system was fair when you see how many of the clubs hangers on got their kids and family members kids in as mascots considering its was an impartial ballot or it was supposed to be.
This idea is a no Brainer and the club should be applauded for it.
As for the cost argument It it works out roughly at 79p a week unaffordable?
Really?

bruntonpete wrote: The feeling I got from reading the minutes is the amount of disharmony across the board. The supporters club could be just line entity. The London branch a sub section of the main one. It should be independent of the club too.
The amount of money in the kitty is pathetic - and yet the fans can raise 10k to help when needed. That kind of money could be in a supporters pot.
No one holds the board accountable for the way they are and the way they behave. That's the trust's duty but they are powerless or simply don't have the will to confront or change anything.
The answer to the 5 year plan was pathetic. An excuse. Not good enough. Of course you can have a 5 year plan/ ambition. It may be revised and altered skiing the way but to have no goals or measured targets is ridiculous.
Well done to the people who are trying but everyone needs to get together as one group and then you will have a chance. All these splinter groups are as much of a hindrance to progress as those at the top table.

Bumble wrote:
When you are on a fixed income yes really. Do you put that spare £1 towards ourr kid being a mascot or do you put it towards the gas bill, or the electric bill. Bear in mind they've already saved up for the season ticket.

I don't know how the draw was done to be honest but when I used to photograph the mascots I regularly got tales of how excited they were when they got chosen and how they never thought it would happen t them.

Anyway, I've moaned long enough, it's not going to change I accept that, and, with the current take up, it looks like it could turn into a nice little earner for the club and still be a great day out for those who can afford it, so for most it's a win win.

nobbyblue wrote: What is the Club’s 5 Year Plan?

Plan is for everyone to work together to make the Club viable, successful and sustainable and a club we can all be proud of. 5 year plans in football are quickly outdated due to the unpredictable nature of the game.

A bit vague!

carwash wrote: Bruntonpete you are an idealist. Your ideas sound wonderful in theory but the cynics like me know they won't work in real life. I don't think there is any appetite for Cumbrians to be part of a one-size fits all supporters club. The vast majority of fans are happy doing their own thing. Those who want to feel part of a specific group find that with this messageboard or with CUSAT or with the West Cumbrians. I think that is why CUSG could work and why I was strongly in favour of the messageboard joining. I accept CUSG will never be completely representative of our fan base but rather like an Italian political coalition it will bring together people with wide-ranging views and form a very good consensus which can represent most fans.

I think CCU and Mouldy have done an excellent job in representing this message board at CUSG with support from the other mods. As a fan I am much happier with this arrangement than if I was a member of a 5000 strong supporters club.

cufcmike wrote:

howoldboy wrote:

cufcmike wrote: I think you should maybe take a few days off...

Maybe you should instead. If you can't read between the lines probably best to stop and think before posting.

I have no issue with the immense hypocrisy that is demanding somebody who is unable to attend meetings due to being unable to attend, when you yourself are unable to attend. I have no issues with folk disagreeing, as I have disagreed with many folk on this board. But there is ways to disagree, and callings folk Charlie Uniform November Tangos or Tossers, or whatever other insult springs to mind, isn't the way to go about it. Thats whether speaking to a moderator or non-moderator.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

nobbyblue wrote: What is the Club’s 5 Year Plan?

Plan is for everyone to work together to make the Club viable, successful and sustainable and a club we can all be proud of. 5 year plans in football are quickly outdated due to the unpredictable nature of the game.

A bit vague!

heilkmoon wrote:

nobbyblue wrote: What is the Club’s 5 Year Plan?

Plan is for everyone to work together to make the Club viable, successful and sustainable and a club we can all be proud of. 5 year plans in football are quickly outdated due to the unpredictable nature of the game.

A bit vague!

Openly patronizing I'd call it!

cufcmike wrote:

howoldboy wrote:

cufcmike wrote: I think you should maybe take a few days off...

Maybe you should instead. If you can't read between the lines probably best to stop and think before posting.

I have no issue with the immense hypocrisy that is demanding somebody who is unable to attend meetings due to being unable to attend, when you yourself are unable to attend. I have no issues with folk disagreeing, as I have disagreed with many folk on this board. But there is ways to disagree, and callings folk Charlie Uniform November Tangos or Tossers, or whatever other insult springs to mind, isn't the way to go about it. Thats whether speaking to a moderator or non-moderator.

That's all I have to say on the matter.