The Trust! Again

I can't believe I read that nonsense from the trust this morning - complete codswallop. twitter.com/joncolman

If there was ever a statement, that made you believe the trust were are deeply in bed with the owners that was it. A completely defeatist attitude of at least we're not Bury or Macclesfield. Why can't we be one of the other successful teams though!

They make me sick! might as well give up!

As Laffy said on the other thread this read like a piece of propaganda that you'd expect from a totalitarian state. CUOSC obviously see themselves as aligned with the new EWM regime. Manager Pressley was damned with faint praise. Disappointing results but a positive approach to player preparation. Do any managers have a negative approach to player preparation?

I'm afraid this smacks of those running CUOSC think they know best because they sit at the top table with the decision makers. I can't think of a better way to alienate the supporters and lose their trust.

The trusts statement seems to capture the mood in the directors box rather than the mood on the terraces!!

Yes just seen Laffy reply on the other thread, correct it reads like propaganda, it's a joke.

The players they listed of us having replaced, have all played at a higher level. So we haven't replaced well, have we. The Pressley love in was sickening.

I don't understand how the trust board are still there. Baffling!

Mullen103 wrote: I can't believe I read that nonsense from the trust this morning - complete codswallop. twitter.com/joncolman

If there was ever a statement, that made you believe the trust were are deeply in bed with the owners that was it. A completely defeatist attitude of at least we're not Bury or Macclesfield. Why can't we be one of the other successful teams though!

They make me sick! might as well give up!

It’s a fair point well made by the trust

Absolute bottlers, no backbone at all. Basically the most pointless organisation going as they’re puppets

And Muppets

Giving a 28 year old a two year contract instead of a one year contract (if rumours are to be believed) is hardly in the same league as the catastrophic financial mismanagement which has taken place at Bury and Bolton, especially when he’s the club’s captain and best player.

I totally understand the need for austerity within football clubs but at the same time they need to function to keep going. If this policy of only offering 12 month deals is rigid then I dread to think the quality of player we’ll attract this summer.

If we had a wage structure in place to stick to and Devitt was demanding in excess of this then I can understand them not deviating from the plan but (once again, if rumour are to be believed) if it was just another year he was looking for then not to make the odd exception is ludicrous.

I fear the new policy is a knee-jerk reaction to the Jason Kennedy situation where we ended up paying a player a good wage who was injured for the remaining half of his contract.

I can’t accept the love in or the propaganda-it’s pathetic, limp and to use sensational players from a bygone age to justify losing a mediocre, inconsistent player like Devitt fools nobody.I also suspect it doesn’t represent the views of the vast majority of fans-we aren’t stupid.

Whilst I like many of the Trust committee, this is a professional football club-not a whilst drive down at the village hall.

The fact of the matter is none of the shareholders have any control anymore-it’s EWM on every front.So start looking for ways to improve your position by raising real money and sorting out your Constitution for the day when the Club is handed over by EWM.

The statement is incomprehensible. What do they hope to achieve with this? Convince us all that we shouldn’t have offered Devitt a two year deal? And this crack about Stan Bowles and Peter Beardsley! Who writes this stuff? They are cosied up with the owners and are an absolute disgrace. I guess they are profiting from the apathy surrounding the club, they can get away with this sort of rubbish and no one can be bothered to do anything about it.

Not sure they are cosied up but I’m also not at all sure like you what or who they are.They sit in the middle-on the Board due to the owners trying to hold their own position but also holding back a proper fund raise with their 25.4pc-despite having no cash.Basically no mans land.

I’m not bothered about Devitt-he clearly wants to go and if he’s getting security and a bigger wage,I would do the same.We get a star at BP once every decade I reckon-he wasn’t it.

The Trust and stakeholders bought into the pillars and structures crap that KC spun but where are those pillars now?As far as I can see, there’s been a bonfire and SP is starting from scratch.Lets hope the strategy works.

I've just e.mailed Jim Mitchell telling him to read the comments on this thread asking him to tell me his reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement. Be interesting to see his response,if any

I have just read the article in the N&S. What a load of tripe!
Apart from having a share in the club which they were given by Mileson who seemed keen on destroying CUFC what exactly have they done apart from buying a television?
With all the talk of budget cuts should they not be out there trying to raise funds like the Darlington supporters have?
Why not just give their shares to Jenkins as they are completely in his pocket regardless of what they say.

Waltero wrote: I've just e.mailed Jim Mitchell telling him to read the comments on this thread asking him to tell me his reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement. Be interesting to see his response,if any

Did you get a reply?

I'd advise no one to renew their memberships.

Not at the moment Richard. To be honest I'm not expecting one. I'll give him until this evening then send him another one cancelling my membership.

Any reply from that shambles thats called the bloody trust

United63 wrote: Any reply from that shambles thats called the bloody trust

I have not had an adequate reply from CUOSC either.
Its a closed book.
I would say the board members are on a pay roll of AJ.
Corrupt.
Change on all fronts needed.

We know there are a closed shop (where have we heard that before) but to not get a reply is a disgrace, especially as you're a member CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIP

There'll likely say they weren't open due to all hands on deck for the next briefing and we all accept!

This club is a shambles!

sorry for delay in answering been out for lunch left phone at home. Nope no reply, as I said I didn't expect one. I don't think he can come up with a believable answer anyway. Total waste of space the lot of them

Renewal's due so I won't be renewing. They don't deserve members especially the ones that disagree with them

Wonder how many trust members will now cancel there memberships like you waltro

Jim Mitchell said he'd responded. He hadn't so he suggested I check my spam mail but there was nothing there. John kukuc emailed me saying he'd had problems with emails from Jim but that he'd seen the reply allegedly sent to me. Short of getting my PC forensically analysed I gave up. It's not on my mobile so nowt more I can do.

Any chance CUSG can organise an email training session - seems to be the excuse of the day from groups at the minute.

Waltero wrote: Jim Mitchell said he'd responded. He hadn't so he suggested I check my spam mail but there was nothing there. John kukuc emailed me saying he'd had problems with emails from Jim but that he'd seen the reply allegedly sent to me. Short of getting my PC forensically analysed I gave up. It's not on my mobile so nowt more I can do.

If John Kukuc has seen the email you should ask him to screenshot it and forward to you. Or ask him to get Mitchell to send a screenshot to you.

Failing that, ask Mitchell to re-send the original.

Either way, it will have a time and date on it from when it was (allegedly) first sent to you.
Don't let them off the hook with this.

I'll do that but commonsense should have prevailed and he or Kukak should have resent it.I'll email them

Maybe I read it wrong but are Jim and Billy up for re election?If they don’t survive, who sits on the Holdings board?

Waltero wrote: Jim Mitchell said he'd responded. He hadn't so he suggested I check my spam mail but there was nothing there. John kukuc emailed me saying he'd had problems with emails from Jim but that he'd seen the reply allegedly sent to me. Short of getting my PC forensically analysed I gave up. It's not on my mobile so nowt more I can do.

If they are having legitimate IT issues, I don't want to see them unfairly blamed for not replying. Depending on how their IT system is setup there should still be a copy of the email somewhere even if they are having trouble sending it (sounds like an issue with their ISP). Could you ask how their email system is set up? Do they host it on their own server, do they rent a server from a hosting company, or do they just use GMail? How do they access their email, do they login via a web browser and the web browser then displays their emails? Do they use a mail client like Outlook or Thunderbird, and if so is it setup for IMAP or POP3?

It apparently was sent by his personal email account. Don't baffle me with all this(to me) hi-tech stuff. You appear to be defending him IMO

Waltero wrote: It apparently was sent by his personal email account. Don't baffle me with all this(to me) hi-tech stuff. You appear to be defending him IMO

No, I'm just curious about the explanation he has given you. Sometimes emails do fail to send, but the fact he hasn't resent it makes it look like he is using it as an excuse to avoid answering questions. Maybe there are technical problems, but that still wouldn't explain why he hasn't resent the email. If he did actually send a reply to you depending on their setup there will almost certainly be a copy of it somewhere, hence my questions.

I use the same email address on my mobile as my PC. I received the email saying to check my spam( nothing there) on my mobile. If it worked on his response why didn't I get his alleged response. Hopefully he's checking in on this board and re-sends his response. I'm not bothered anyway, he's lost another member of the trust. I'll put the fiver into my away day kitty. Dingwall here we come

He can always send a good old fashioned written letter Waltero...he will have the info being a member..

But then again..

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Waltero I am out of the country, as is Jim, but I'm not with him!
You admit on here you received my emails. With your permission I could post my emails on here with what I consider is an explanation. None of your personal information will be displayed, only my name and the dates and times of my emails. I thought you had worked out how to access Jim's 2 emails to yourself as you didn't respond to me. lf you want I can forward Jim's email which will not be put on hold because we have the same provider. You can then post on here that you have received it and when it was sent.

flumeblue wrote: Waltero I am out of the country, as is Jim, but I'm not with him!
You admit on here you received my emails. With your permission I could post my emails on here with what I consider is an explanation. None of your personal information will be displayed, only my name and the dates and times of my emails. I thought you had worked out how to access Jim's 2 emails to yourself as you didn't respond to me. lf you want I can forward Jim's email which will not be put on hold because we have the same provider. You can then post on here that you have received it and when it was sent.

We already know that he is called Walter

flumeblue wrote: Waltero I am out of the country, as is Jim, but I'm not with him!
You admit on here you received my emails. With your permission I could post my emails on here with what I consider is an explanation. None of your personal information will be displayed, only my name and the dates and times of my emails. I thought you had worked out how to access Jim's 2 emails to yourself as you didn't respond to me. lf you want I can forward Jim's email which will not be put on hold because we have the same provider. You can then post on here that you have received it and when it was sent.

I think people are just so fed up with feeling that their questions are being ignored and they are being fobbed off, that it's hard to believe this story about an email not sending. IT systems aren't perfect and things do go wrong sometimes but if someone tells you they haven't received an email then you just resend it. Why hasn't that happened here? There is a huge issue right now with fans feeling their questions are being ignored, so even if there is a legitimate problem with some emails not sending, not resending it makes it look like technical problems are being used as an excuse to avoid answering questions.

I'm really interested in hearing this explanation btw. Can you answer any of the questions I had about the IT setup?

When can we expect the trust to be in a position to put any money into the club?
Do they have any ideas or initiatives to try and raise more money?

I think we need to understand that not everyone is tech savvy!

However if you’re in one of these positions, where communication is key, and you don’t know how to send an email then in my opinion you shouldn’t be in there. The trust haven’t updated their website in months and don’t respond to valid questions on social media. Yes they may have email issues, doesn’t explain the other communication issues.

The DSG had genuine email issues whereby “he” didn’t know how to utilise attachments. Easily sorted! I know I said above, tongue in cheek, Cusg could organise an email session due to all these groups having issues.

Mullen103 wrote: However if you’re in one of these positions, where communication is key, and you don’t know how to send an email then in my opinion you shouldn’t be in there.

But he is capable of sending an email. He says he sent two to Walter. If he can do that, he is able to resend them so why hasn't he?

Mullen103 wrote: The trust haven’t updated their website in months and don’t respond to valid questions on social media. Yes they may have email issues, doesn’t explain the other communication issues.

If someone says they didn't receive your email then it's just common sense to send it again. If you don't, then it starts to make people wonder if you are lying, and just using the excuse of technical problems to avoid answering questions. Especially here, where one of the main complaints fans have is that they feel their concerns are being ignored. Will be interested to see if flumeblue posts again and what his explanation is as I am very interested in hearing details about these technical problems.

It was Kessler.

I am on holiday, been out eating and drinking. I will respond to Waltero after he posts, and when I'm sober. Go well fellow Blues.

flumeblue wrote: I am on holiday, been out eating and drinking. I will respond to Waltero after he posts, and when I'm sober. Go well fellow Blues.

While we're waiting for Waltero to decide if he's happy with you posting the email itself, could you tell me what these technical problems were that apparently stopped Jim from sending emails? Because there is a huge feeling among fans right now that our concerns are being ignored, so when something like this happens people are going to wonder if it's just another excuse to avoid questions. But if there were genuine technical problems then I wouldn't want Jim being unfairly blamed. So could you go into detail about exactly what these problems were? Thank you.

I'm more than happy for them to go ahead. I'd like to read it for myself. He's already given my full name, a few will know me anyway

Now it will be interesting to see if flumeblue sticks to his word. I can't wait to see the email and the explanation for why it supposedly didn't send the first time. Also does the Trust have a GDPR policy? Couldn't find it on their site.

They're only volunteers FFS!!!

Just been listening to Talksport where they covered Newcastle, Charlton, Bury and Sunderland in the past. Sunderland new owner was on, saying that even if he reduces his stake for more investment, he will not give the club to anyone, they must be transparent with the supporters as they have suffered for so long. Newcastle supporters saying their main gripe is not Benitez but just the lack of info coming out of the club to fans. Recurring theme? I have said for a long time that supporters, although disappointed, would prefer the truth no matter how bad, and then they would make their decisions going forward, and the majority would stick by the club and probably support the lads more if they knew we were struggling, siege mentality. The lack of noise from CUFC, the Trust has gone on far too long. Fair play to NC who does answer emails, but lets be honest, he has no pull or say higher up.

Flumblue, you are a good bloke, very passionate and I have no doubt you want the best for the club, but even you must see that Jim etc, Nigel Davison with his pointless column in the news and star that tells us nowt (if he still does it), are just not doing what is right by supporters as a trust. You cant blame people for feeling you are in with the board now, people ask the Trust questions and get nothing back, the only response we get is when we have a go on the radio.

Jim said at the forum whilst pointing at NC "I make sure these do the right thing" or words to that affect, really?
You have a fantastic status in the club, use it and use it for the right reasons you have it for, the supporters.

I know you are close to AJ and that is fine, but please tell the "leaders" to start doing what a trust should do, raise funds, engage with its members, and be transparent, I am afraid though the damage is all done, hence the two younger lads who got involved and walked away. I attended one meeting with Jon Colman and James Phillips, and to say it was underwhelming is an understatement.

It could be so different, and not hard to make it different. Expect stick from supporters and media, because it simply does not work and the whole organisation do not help themselves.

Dancingbear wrote: They're only volunteers FFS!!!

Is that relevant? Even if Waltero got a reply right now, look at how difficult it's been to get it.

lummy8 wrote: their main gripe is not Benitez but just the lack of info coming out of the club to fans. Recurring theme?

lummy8 wrote: The lack of noise from CUFC, the Trust has gone on far too long

lummy8 wrote: You cant blame people for feeling you are in with the board now, people ask the Trust questions and get nothing back, the only response we get is when we have a go on the radio.

There's lots of problems with the club but lack of communication is the big one. The Trust can say what they like about email problems, and even if you give the benefit of the doubt and accept there was a legitimate IT problem that still doesn't explain why they didn't resend the email from another account and then check with Waltero that he had received it. This is just common sense, if you know that lack of communication is a problem and you also know there are technical problems with your emails sometimes not sending, you would be following things up and checking that people had received your reply. By not doing that, it makes the Trust look like they are hiding behind excuses to avoid answering questions and that's what people are just sick fed up of.

If fans feel they are being fobbed off and ignored then they are just going to walk away. Waltero might get a reply but he's had to really push for it. Most people won't bother with that, they'll just walk away because why should they put money into the club when the club doesn't respect them enough to listen to them?

That must have been some sesh flumeblue was on last night.

Lummy is 100% correct here.

I've no issues with trust members personally, I like Flume and we've had many of good discussions and echo the passionate part, however the trust isn't working and I make no apologies for saying its a complete shambles. But any critism was seen as personal critism and then you get the "We're only volunteers excuse"

Again Lummy is correct, the trust are here to serve/act for the supporters. They aren't doing that and it appears they are acting/defending the clubs actions and thats why people get annoyed. I've suggested open meetings/discussions etc but get told theres no appetite, thats why people think its a closed shop.

I was reading about Newports trust yesterday, they have monthly open meetings and seem far more organised/professional then us. Why we can't we have the same?

The trust don't answer questions on their social media, the websites not been updated in months and the trust wonder why people are against them. THIS IS WHY - START ACTING FOR THE SUPPORTERS INSTEAD OF FOR YOURSELVES!

When Melbourne agrees with me on something then you know there's problems

Kessler wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: They're only volunteers FFS!!!

Is that relevant? Even if Waltero got a reply right now, look at how difficult it's been to get it.

No but its one of their favourite excuses. You'll learn in time