FAO John Kukuc

I saw this comment on the club website: 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.

I think this is a misleading description of what actually happened. A fan was concerned about his email not being answered. The reason given by the Trust for this had some inconsistencies in it. I think in those circumstances it's reasonable for fans to query those inconsistencies and ask for an explanation. I don't think anything was exaggerated. Could you remove that comment from the website and replace it with a more accurate description of what happened?

I love the club but it just feels like it's slowly dying a death and those in charge don't seem to care about listening to the fans. When you say the issue was exaggerated, it's like you are suggesting we were wrong for asking you to provide an explanation. Can't you see this sort of thing is exactly why people are fed up? As fans of the club yourselves, surely you should be on the same side as us, wanting what's best for the club? Being hostile towards us and accusing us of having agendas and exaggerating issues when we ask perfectly reasonable questions isn't helpful and just makes you look more in league with the board, which is something you insist isn't the case.

What a cheeky bunch of bar-stewards.
Shifting the blame onto an innocent party who quite understandably was asking about a reply he never got.
Shower of sh1t the lot of them.

CCU wrote: Surely if you wanted to get hold of a Trust Board Member then you’d email them directly (Which could also check if it’s working!) then shout out on here for them?

I just thought it would be better to ask on here, as they seem to be struggling with email at the minute. Twice in the space of a few weeks they have said some kind of email issue has prevented them from replying to someone. At least if it's posted on the message board then everyone can see it, and also everyone can see whether they chose to reply or not.

What the hell is all this Hu Ha about the Trust?..Does anyone give a toss about them?..The Trust may own 25% of the club but they are a total nonentity ,a waste of time, they are no benefit to the club at all....Steve Patt is more use to the club by having a two of his men working at BP a couple of days a week!..For being 25% owners they should be putting in 50k a year. Then they might deserve some respect.

I thought you and mouldy were in bed with the trust now I know it, mouldy sticking up for them on Twitter and you on here, ladgeful.

If I was John K, I would resign-he’s been hunted like a fox and all he is doing is trying to help the Club-very poor

Laffy wrote: If I was John K, I would resign-he’s been hunted like a fox and all he is doing is trying to help the Club-very poor

Spoken like a true quitter.

Laffy wrote: If I was John K, I would resign-he’s been hunted like a fox and all he is doing is trying to help the Club-very poor

I thought a country gent like you would approve of fox hunting.

Laffy wrote: If I was John K, I would resign-he’s been hunted like a fox and all he is doing is trying to help the Club-very poor

No, I just think the wording used in the minutes to describe this issue is misleading. The Trust are supposed to represent the fans. A fan sent them an email and didn't receive a reply. I do appreciate that John posted a reply on his account, but his explanation didn't really add up, so of course people were going to question it further. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask someone if they can explain inconsistencies in something they've said. They are acting like it's just making a big deal out of a small email issue, but they are the ones who have caused it to become a big issue, by being evasive, eventually giving an explanation which didn't add up, and then refusing to account for the inconsistencies in their story. In the circumstances, surely it's understandable for fans to request a proper explanation, and not to be told they are just exaggerating an issue?

The way the minutes describe this issue is disgraceful. It doesn't accurately reflect what really happened and it says a lot about their attitude towards fans who dare to question them.

Laffy wrote: If I was John K, I would resign-he’s been hunted like a fox and all he is doing is trying to help the Club-very poor

The current fsces of CUOSC are there for their own self not for supporters. The stance in defending the club owners and not doing what the trust was set up for shows this.

Heck Kessler, when I was on holiday (hastily booked so I didn’t have to think about today), and I gave Waltero what I considered was a possible explanation as to why Waltero couldn’t see a response from Jim. I did ask Waltero twice personally if he wanted assistance from me, without any response. I emailed again sending when this subject reared its head on here again sometime later.
Waltero responded thanking me and saying “Hi John thanks for response. I've read it. As I've said I searched all thru my spam and nothing, if there has been a glitch then so be it. I'm moving on from the situation. Cheers”.

I am just a Carlisle United fan trying to do their bit for “our” club, as all CUOSC members are. But obviously it’s not good enough in some people’s eyes. I will reflect on my position Laffy because I don’t want to create discord between “Blues” fans.

I will not be responding to this email for today as I am in the North-East awaiting an operation for which I will be fully sedated. After reading this I think it will be somewhat of a blessing.

Instead of you talking all the flak John why don’t you get your illustrious leader to take the heat off you, surely if it’s been a mistake then he can clear things up.

Laffy wrote: If I was John K, I would resign-he’s been hunted like a fox and all he is doing is trying to help the Club-very poor

They all should!

However as much as the trust are a complete shambles/waste of time I’ve found John to be very fair. Personally his a nice bloke and although I don’t always agree with what he says, our conversations are always polite.

Johns the only trust board member that comes on here, that we know off and should be commended for that - whether you believe/agree is a different matter.

Personally hope the operation goes well.

I do though partly agree with Kessler. The response was odd and as the trust have had two email issues I think posting on here was the best idea.

I responded to John as he had the decency to contact me. I agree Melbourne it should be Mitchell taking the flak. I've cancelled my membership and hopefully others will follow suit as in my view the Trust isn't acting in the correct way for the fans

Thanks for replying.

flumeblue wrote: I did ask Waltero twice personally if he wanted assistance from me, without any response.

Have you considered that might be because he was so fed up of being stonewalled that he assumed this was just another excuse, and resigned himself to the fact he would never get a reply? In my opinion the issue isn't simply about an email not sending, because that can happen sometimes and by itself I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. The problem is how you've handled it. You know that fans regularly cite lack of communication as a big problem with the club. And even though you were aware of an issue where a fan was complaining about not receiving a reply, you just assumed he had received it rather than actually chase it up and confirm with him. Then you give an explanation for it which doesn't quite add up, and you can't account for the inconsistencies in your explanation. Then after the meeting someone posts minutes which give an inaccurate and very misleading summary of the issue, implying that fans are unreasonable for asking for an explanation. The entire thing has been badly handled from start to finish.

flumeblue wrote: I am just a Carlisle United fan trying to do their bit for “our” club, as all CUOSC members are. But obviously it’s not good enough in some people’s eyes. I will reflect on my position Laffy because I don’t want to create discord between “Blues” fans.

It's great that you want to do your bit for the club. But surely a big part of that is engaging with us, taking criticism on board rather than getting defensive about it? I'm not having a go at you or anyone else, I just think the Trust handled this issue very poorly, I think they made themselves look suspicious by not giving a proper and clear explanation. Credit to you for coming on here though and giving your side of the story, we need more of that. Personally I think they should have an official Trust account on here, it would probably help people feel they are being listened to if they saw you having an active presence on here, getting involved in discussions.

Also, Mullen has already said this, but hope the op goes well.

Regarding CUOSC's IT there is something clearly not right with it. I received the email regarding the AGM. On my windows phone I can access the CUOSC website and all the downloads. On my windows laptop I cannot access the website or the downloads but instead receive an error message Error Code: INET_E_DOWNLOAD_FAILURE.

Why this happens is beyond my understanding of IT but I wonder if perhaps there is some link to the problem Waltero experienced. Hope this helps.

Richard is smart on all things IT-i can’t imagine it’s too difficult to resolve.

As for you John, ignore the flak-at least you are engaged with the fans and are trying.As for the total waster who suggested I’m a quitter, have a go yourself and see how far you get.Sometimes though it’s better to travel than arrive and on this occasion, I’m glad they found a Syrian billionaire with untold wealth.An astonishing piece of financial engineering coupled with plunging the Club into ever more debt.Wow indeed

carwash wrote: Regarding CUOSC's IT there is something clearly not right with it. I received the email regarding the AGM. On my windows phone I can access the CUOSC website and all the downloads. On my windows laptop I cannot access the website or the downloads but instead receive an error message Error Code: INET_E_DOWNLOAD_FAILURE.

Why this happens is beyond my understanding of IT but I wonder if perhaps there is some link to the problem Waltero experienced. Hope this helps.

INET_E_DOWNLOAD_FAILURE error is something your end Carwash - I presume you're using edge or Internet explorer. Get rid of those and use chrome or firefox.

If you have to use either edge or IE, clear your cookies and use the guide below.

Thanks Richard. The CUOSC site is the only site where I've had this problem with Explorer. I'm not missing much. Cheers

melbourneblues wrote: I thought you and mouldy were in bed with the trust now I know it, mouldy sticking up for them on Twitter and you on here, ladgeful.

Correct, I bloody knew it!

Andrew, it's a shame you didn't get similarly fired up when John and the boys called you a nasty name.
Rather than you know, quitting.

Like when their own auditors asked me why I was doing it after noting it was insolvent-as evidenced by it cratering later on.

Some think they had a lucky escape with me failing because let’s face it I did-I however feel exactly the same at my end.Without absolute control over the way the Club was run, it would have been hugely problematic for me-ask David Allen or EWM or even the Syrian who by their own actions confirm as much.

At the end of the day, you can lead a horse to water...

I don’t get this constant picking away at the minutiae actions of the Trust.I would have thought it best to focus on the high level stuff-share ownership, negative control, lack of fundraising activity, dwindling membership.These are things that I’m worried about-not whether John K has a problem with a firewall.

As I read it, the Trust committee positions of the two members on the holdings board at up for review by rotation(unlike the Holdings board where there is clearly no rotation) Is that not the pressing issue of the day?

Does anyone know who i can join Kukuc's clan.

Why not stand against Jim and Billy and power into the top table-that would put a fox in the chicken coup

Laffy wrote: Why not stand against Jim and Billy and power into the top table-that would put a fox in the chicken coup

Go for it!

Laffy wrote: I don’t get this constant picking away at the minutiae actions of the Trust.I would have thought it best to focus on the high level stuff-share ownership, negative control, lack of fundraising activity, dwindling membership.These are things that I’m worried about-not whether John K has a problem with a firewall.

Laffy it's not about the email itself, but their evasiveness in addressing it and how their story doesn't add up. Lack of communication is cited by fans as being one of the biggest problems with the club. I know fans who say they can cope with the lack of money, they can cope with bad results, but the one thing they can't cope with is the secrecy, never being told anything. People are questioning whether this email issue was real, or whether the Trust lied about it in order to avoid answering a fan. I thought it was fair to ask for an explanation, because it's possible there really was an issue in which case it wouldn't be fair for Jim to get blamed for that. And credit to John for actually coming on here and posting his side of the story, but parts of his explanation didn't add up. And when I asked if he could explain those inconsistencies in the story, he couldn't. Can you see why that might make people reluctant to accept their story at face value?

To be honest I think most have them have a day job and a family life-I don’t think this is something to die in a ditch over but I can see your concerns.

To repeat again though, Jim and Billy are up for reselection-the road to the top table is very clear

Mullen103 wrote:

melbourneblues wrote: I thought you and mouldy were in bed with the trust now I know it, mouldy sticking up for them on Twitter and you on here, ladgeful.

Correct, I bloody knew it!

Dan must think he's Laffy with his hat on!

Nightcap?

Laffy wrote: To be honest I think most have them have a day job and a family life-I don’t think this is something to die in a ditch over but I can see your concerns.

To repeat again though, Jim and Billy are up for reselection-the road to the top table is very clear

Is this not one of the main problems with the Trust though. They see themselves as supporters helping out, when in reality they are 25% owners of the club, and should be run on a proper business footing, not like Dad's Army.
The old guard looking after their own interests are, and always will be, an obstacle to change within the Trust and within the Club.
It should have been would up years ago.

I'm no lover of the trust but it all seems a bit of an over reaction to a stray email.

Exactly Nobby

nobbyblue wrote: I'm no lover of the trust but it all seems a bit of an over reaction to a stray email.

It's not about the email itself, and I have said that a few times. It's about the Trust's reaction to this issue. They gave an explanation which was full of holes, and then refused to account for those inconsistencies. It's hard to believe what someone says in those circumstances. If they are telling the truth then why can't they explain the inconsistencies in the story they have given us? I can see why people might think it's just a stray email, but I think it's important because it raises a bigger issue. If the Trust won't give fans a straight forward answer to something like this, how can they possibly claim to be capable of being a voice for us/representing us in other matters?

Yeah I think the email situation was maybe the fuse for more questions being asked by Kessler on a broader range, and not a direct attack at John. Kessler cares, John cares.

End of the day I think we all probably have the same feelings.

1. John is a decent bloke whose heart is in the right place, but has to hold hands up that the model/organisation is not working, and as Laffy says, it must be frustrating for him if he wants things to happen that he says he does, so should resign.

2. Communication/website etc are poor

3. Weekly articles or statements are half arsed

4. Fundraising or lack of it and the excuses for that, are poor

5. No confidence in the Trust as a whole from majority

So if positions are up for renewal, what does it take to get others in those positions and replace them, or is it boxed off that this can not happen?

lummy8 wrote: Yeah I think the email situation was maybe the fuse for more questions being asked by Kessler on a broader range, and not a direct attack at John. Kessler cares, John cares.

End of the day I think we all probably have the same feelings.

1. John is a decent bloke whose heart is in the right place, but has to hold hands up that the model/organisation is not working, and as Laffy says, it must be frustrating for him if he wants things to happen that he says he does, so should resign.

2. Communication/website etc are poor

3. Weekly articles or statements are half arsed

4. Fundraising or lack of it and the excuses for that, are poor

5. No confidence in the Trust as a whole from majority

So if positions are up for renewal, what does it take to get others in those positions and replace them, or is it boxed off that this can not happen?

We've seen it before though, where a member got voted in joined their bored and wanted to improve communications but got shot down and felt he had to resign.

Therefore it'll take a good clean out - hence a vote of no confidence - to get them all out and start again with hopefully a fresh board. There's no point the odd one or two getting in as the crux of the trust are still there.

I think the word that covers all sins is ‘ineffective’

With that in mind, the Committee should be looking at how they become effective for the benefit of the Club and it’s fanbase.I don’t mean buying a flatscreen TV or second hand bus shelter either

Sadly our Trust has done more harm than good.

Trusts will never work effectively as a voluntary roll, unless the level of holding is reflected by the energy and effort put in.

The solution is a clean sheet of paper and start again.

No shared vision, no plan, no hope.

Trouble is though it's a thankless task getting involved in all this crap in your spare time as a number have found with the Trust.

Boring committees and associated formalities are bad enough in any voluntary organisation and inevitably tend to attract a certain type of person who either enjoys all that stuff or is willing to endure it.

The complexities of the Trust's situation in relation to the club and longstanding poor reputation with supporters makes it even less appealing.

Hats off to anyone who can be arsed with it.

lummy8 wrote: Yeah I think the email situation was maybe the fuse for more questions being asked by Kessler on a broader range, and not a direct attack at John. Kessler cares, John cares.

End of the day I think we all probably have the same feelings.

1. John is a decent bloke whose heart is in the right place, but has to hold hands up that the model/organisation is not working, and as Laffy says, it must be frustrating for him if he wants things to happen that he says he does, so should resign.

2. Communication/website etc are poor

3. Weekly articles or statements are half arsed

4. Fundraising or lack of it and the excuses for that, are poor

5. No confidence in the Trust as a whole from majority

So if positions are up for renewal, what does it take to get others in those positions and replace them, or is it boxed off that this can not happen?

Yeah that's basically how I feel. It's not about the email itself, these things happen sometimes and it's fine. What concerns me is how they responded to it. A fan didn't get a reply and it was reasonable to ask why. The Trust responded by being evasive, giving an explanation that didn't add up, refused to account for those holes in their story, then posted a misleading and inaccurate summary of the issue on the club website that "the issue was exaggerated", basically making out the fans are in the wrong to be asking questions. I can see why people might see it as just an email and not a big issue, but it raises a really important issue. How can they say they are capable of representing the fans if they get this defensive when fans ask a question about a basic issue?

I'd agree Johns heart seems in the right place, he has come on here and given his side of the story and I think credit is due for that. But surely this issue shows him just how little faith people have in the Trust right now. Surely they need to reconsider the way they react to criticism and questions from the fans? People have suggested before that the Trust create official accounts on here and I think that would be a good idea to enable easier communication between them and fans. It might also help them really connect with what fans are thinking if they have a regular presence here and just get a feel for what we are thinking and any concerns we have.

Only at CUFC would such a drama and kangaroo court be created over one [censored] e mail.

As I said the other day, you don’t need the grief that ‘high office’ in CUFC affords.Appalling how everything is dissected, dismantled, criticised

Laffy wrote: As I said the other day, you don’t need the grief that ‘high office’ in CUFC affords.Appalling how everything is dissected, dismantled, criticised

Same as every club - by no means unique to Carlisle.
Also like all clubs, once the degree of negativity is built up (to the Trust or owners) it is like the proverbial oil tanker trying to turn it round.
That's why the talk of a takeover was received so well - the chance for a clean slate.

It seems that the trust is a boys club too.

High Street wrote: Only at CUFC would such a drama and kangaroo court be created over one [censored] e mail.

I've already said it's not about the email itself, but about the way the Trust have reacted to being questioned about it. It's not a kangaroo court. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I accept it's possible they might be telling the truth. But they've made it hard to believe them by giving a story full of holes and then refusing to explain those holes. It makes them look suspicious, so if there is an innocent explanation, they are doing themselves a huge disservice by being this evasive. They are making themselves look more and more ridiculous every day this drags on, and it raises the question of how they can possibly be capable of doing their job representing the fans if they won't even answer such a basic question.

Laffy wrote: As I said the other day, you don’t need the grief that ‘high office’ in CUFC affords.Appalling how everything is dissected, dismantled, criticised

Was it appalling when you were criticizing the BOD laffy?

I think with good cause Kessler.They ran the Club into the ground after plumping for a billionaire.Are you happy with events?

On the other hand,I don’t think John K has done anything wrong at all!

Laffy wrote: I think with good cause Kessler.They ran the Club into the ground after plumping for a billionaire.Are you happy with events?

No I'm not happy with that and I think it's right to criticize them. I think my criticism of the Trust is with good cause as well, a fan asked a reasonable question and all they've done since then is be evasive and give a story full of holes while refusing to explain any inconsistencies. For an organization that claims to represent the fans, I think that is unacceptable.

Laffy wrote: On the other hand,I don’t think John K has done anything wrong at all!

Fair enough, it really should be Jim posting explaining his lack of reply rather than letting someone else take all the flak on his behalf.

FFS is this still going? I agree that there was a question to be asked but the chatter has gone way beyond the limits of the any blame that was deserved for a lapse of judgement. This isn’t a smoking gun lads. It’s more just another example of the dreadful decision-making within the Trust. So instead of ploughing this lonely furrow why don’t you start a thread within which these individual examples can be collected. No one thing is going to persuade folk that the Trust are doing a dreadful job, it will more likely be a pile of small things. This poor example of being honest, their failure to match up to the London Branch in raising funds, their failure to stand up to the other board members on ANYTHING. Put them all in one place and let them build, then point Trust apologists towards that one thread and ask whether any fully-functioning organisation could give that many examples of ineptness.

Just a thought.