said the trust were a shambles years ago.
Hi fellow Carlisle United fans!
We’re ‘Unita Fortior’ - A group set up with the aim of creating a better voice for the fanbase.
We’ll be presenting our launch document this coming week, so keep an eye out.
Please also search for our Facebook group or Twitter profile if you use these platforms.
UNITA FORTIOR
We’re ‘Unita Fortior’ - A group set up with the aim of creating a better voice for the fanbase.
We’ll be presenting our launch document this coming week, so keep an eye out.
Please also search for our Facebook group or Twitter profile if you use these platforms.
UNITA FORTIOR
Viewing This Post
I think the club needs that £500k pa to be comfortable-hence the hybrid model of local business and fans.
But even raising £50k pa is a no no until that debt is cleared and the current mob move on
But even raising £50k pa is a no no until that debt is cleared and the current mob move on
I think the club needs that £500k pa to be comfortable-hence the hybrid model of local business and fans.
But even raising £50k pa is a no no until that debt is cleared and the current mob move on
You can raise it, and hold it in the bank until new blood comes, show the intent…
I think the club needs that £500k pa to be comfortable-hence the hybrid model of local business and fans.
But even raising £50k pa is a no no until that debt is cleared and the current mob move on
You can raise it, and hold it in the bank until new blood comes, show the intent…
Good luck with that one, "will you buy a raffle ticket? What's it for? Carlisle United but we aren't going to give it to them until there's a regime change. Err ok, I think I'll pass.
There can be problems when CUOSC does raise money. They obviously want some control over where the money goes. Maybe buy a specific thing the club needs but then the Club can see things rather differently. They can say, hold on, we can raise money this way and then use the money exactly how we want or just put it in the general pot. In fact, hold on you are taking an opportunity away from us by raising money in this way, we, the club should be doing that not CUOSC, it's not going to be easy.
Like a disused bus shelter?
It’s not going to happen without complete regime change and debt repaid.
It’s not going to happen without complete regime change and debt repaid.
I think the club needs that £500k pa to be comfortable-hence the hybrid model of local business and fans.
But even raising £50k pa is a no no until that debt is cleared and the current mob move on
You can raise it, and hold it in the bank until new blood comes, show the intent…
Good luck with that one, "will you buy a raffle ticket? What's it for? Carlisle United but we aren't going to give it to them until there's a regime change. Err ok, I think I'll pass.
There can be problems when CUOSC does raise money. They obviously want some control over where the money goes. Maybe buy a specific thing the club needs but then the Club can see things rather differently. They can say, hold on, we can raise money this way and then use the money exactly how we want or just put it in the general pot. In fact, hold on you are taking an opportunity away from us by raising money in this way, we, the club should be doing that not CUOSC, it's not going to be easy.
Fortunately there’s more exciting ways and means than having a raffle or race night!
Any holding of cash reserves wouldn’t likely be forever either, change will come, sooner rather than later. How soon equates to the old piece of string question mind!
The Club have already said they see CUSG as the best way to raise funds, unfortunately (and this isn’t a dig) there’s only CUOSC and London Branch who have the size of Membership to do so in significant amounts. LB also donate separately already so zero reason why CUOSC can’t too?
Agree, specific areas and projects could benefit from any CUOSC raised cash, can’t imagine the Club complaining if they were improving things for the benefit of all?
Anyways, all conversations to be had by CUOSC AND their Members in coming weeks and months…
Like a disused bus shelter?
That was London Branch part funded…
In this weeks episode of “How not to”, CUOSC have managed to co-opt a chap to their Board at their Monthly Board Meeting on Weds, yet when he was introduced at the Members Meeting on Thurs he was there ‘to help with Zoom’ and no mention of said co-opting.
Straight away I’ll say absolutely nothing against the chap who’s looking to get involved, good on him, but to fail to mention such an important fact is quite frankly a failing of duty to all Members.
I’m off to bang my head off the wall, genuinely incredible behaviour…
Straight away I’ll say absolutely nothing against the chap who’s looking to get involved, good on him, but to fail to mention such an important fact is quite frankly a failing of duty to all Members.
I’m off to bang my head off the wall, genuinely incredible behaviour…
Time to go this alone CCU...its like pissing into the wind with them ...
Problem is getting momentum and numbers on board then serious intent to be more significsnt than the current shan that is cloak and dagger stuff...Sadly the "Simmo at the wheel"wankfest is high at present and fickle fans think all is going to be fine.. and will be happy bobbing along.
Problem is getting momentum and numbers on board then serious intent to be more significsnt than the current shan that is cloak and dagger stuff...Sadly the "Simmo at the wheel"wankfest is high at present and fickle fans think all is going to be fine.. and will be happy bobbing along.
Genuinely incredible!
The replies make a good read!
CUOSC would like to apologise for confusion caused in today's briefing regarding Paul. He is currently helping us with a view to being potentially coopted at a later date but at this stage doesn’t hold a board position. This is what the briefing should have read.
— CUOSC (@CUOSC) May 15, 2022
The replies make a good read!
Another fine mess!
The supporters' trust, in meeting minutes released today, said a new board member had been proposed, seconded and unanimously co-opted. Hours later they're saying he hasn't been co-opted at all... 🤷♂️ #cufc https://t.co/b3Wl2zkafO
— Jon Colman (@joncolman) May 15, 2022
Digging a massive hole here!
Briefing clearly states what went on at the meeting Wednesday and was 2nd etc and nothing at the meeting Thursday.
The tweet is amazing! Because it’s either a lie or the trust are a bigger shambles than we thought possible.
Briefing clearly states what went on at the meeting Wednesday and was 2nd etc and nothing at the meeting Thursday.
The tweet is amazing! Because it’s either a lie or the trust are a bigger shambles than we thought possible.
What’s most disappointing about the failure to inform the fans and then the subsequent tweet following justifiable criticism is I really thought they were starting to catch on and modernise, and learn from mistakes, albeit incredibly slowly and through external pressure but it was something.
Now either way it’s back to square 1. At its worst it’s deliberately withholding information from the members then lying about it, at it’s best it’s a very poor example of incompetence and lack of care in communication.
For me there’s far too much detail in the briefing about who proposed Paul and who seconded followed up by the statement that he was unanimously voted into the board for it to be anything other than the truth.
In which case this should’ve been communicated to the members at Thursday’s meeting.
They were actually given several opportunities to do so too.
In the opening when they introduced Paul as helping with the zoom, when questions were asked about how many board members there are and what skills they bring.
I’ve actually defended them several times both online and in person to fans. I always felt that the accusation that it was a closed group that would do what they liked to maintain their positions was exaggerated.
However the more involved I get the more disappointed and frustrated I am with the speed of movement and the barriers constantly put in the way of change.
I will say from limited interaction with Paul he’ll be an asset to the trust. He cares (as I’m sure they all do) and has stuck his head up to be counted and tried to make change.
He should be applauded for that and I would encourage others to do the same. If I’m honest the turn out for the meeting was very poor.
We cannot change the trust from the outside. As frustrating as it is if we want better then we need to turn up and say it. All well and good writing them off and giving up but that achieves nothing.
This is the biggest opportunity to take this club forward with Simmo returning and revamping the entire place.
We as fans need to help. From turning up on a match day to ensuring the trust’s seats on the boards have real backing and can push for a change in ownership and the removal of Day’s looming threat.
Unfortunately the handling of Paul’s appointment by the trust has probably made this a negative experience for him.
Now either way it’s back to square 1. At its worst it’s deliberately withholding information from the members then lying about it, at it’s best it’s a very poor example of incompetence and lack of care in communication.
For me there’s far too much detail in the briefing about who proposed Paul and who seconded followed up by the statement that he was unanimously voted into the board for it to be anything other than the truth.
In which case this should’ve been communicated to the members at Thursday’s meeting.
They were actually given several opportunities to do so too.
In the opening when they introduced Paul as helping with the zoom, when questions were asked about how many board members there are and what skills they bring.
I’ve actually defended them several times both online and in person to fans. I always felt that the accusation that it was a closed group that would do what they liked to maintain their positions was exaggerated.
However the more involved I get the more disappointed and frustrated I am with the speed of movement and the barriers constantly put in the way of change.
I will say from limited interaction with Paul he’ll be an asset to the trust. He cares (as I’m sure they all do) and has stuck his head up to be counted and tried to make change.
He should be applauded for that and I would encourage others to do the same. If I’m honest the turn out for the meeting was very poor.
We cannot change the trust from the outside. As frustrating as it is if we want better then we need to turn up and say it. All well and good writing them off and giving up but that achieves nothing.
This is the biggest opportunity to take this club forward with Simmo returning and revamping the entire place.
We as fans need to help. From turning up on a match day to ensuring the trust’s seats on the boards have real backing and can push for a change in ownership and the removal of Day’s looming threat.
Unfortunately the handling of Paul’s appointment by the trust has probably made this a negative experience for him.
Jon Colman’s article on yesterdays kerfuffle:
The supporters' trust have faced questions from fans after announcing a new board member - only later to say he isn't a board member after all #cufc @newsandstar https://t.co/E5oclm331C
— Jon Colman (@joncolman) May 16, 2022
Putting aside the PR disaster, if correct procedures were followed and ' Paul ' was co-opted, then he is now a member of the board of CUOSC, like it or not !
No ammount of Tweet's, emails, letters or talk can change that.
If the Trust need/want/have to go back on what was originally proposed, seconded and carried, then the correct procedure will have to be followed to avoid totally undermining the organisation, and it's rules, procedures and constitution.
The hole Mullen refers to, will only get much deeper and darker if BS Tweets and contradictions are used to cloak this matter.
No ammount of Tweet's, emails, letters or talk can change that.
If the Trust need/want/have to go back on what was originally proposed, seconded and carried, then the correct procedure will have to be followed to avoid totally undermining the organisation, and it's rules, procedures and constitution.
The hole Mullen refers to, will only get much deeper and darker if BS Tweets and contradictions are used to cloak this matter.
The trust have [censored] up and can’t win in this situation.
Either the tweet is a lie or the minutes are ridiculously wrong.
If we go the tweet Is a lie route, the evidence in the briefing is extremely strong. Saying a proposal took place including a vote and it even mentions he is on the board until the next agm.
If the tweet is true than wtf happened. What was the vote for, how did it make it to the briefing and most importantly how many other minutes contain errors?
Imo it’s very very odd to put so much detail in the minutes to then say it’s an “honest mistake” that’s just a barbaric excuse.
Anyway the only thing this will do is put people off. This is entirely 100% the trusts fault but I can see the new person walking asap.
The whole situation is odd.
Either the tweet is a lie or the minutes are ridiculously wrong.
If we go the tweet Is a lie route, the evidence in the briefing is extremely strong. Saying a proposal took place including a vote and it even mentions he is on the board until the next agm.
If the tweet is true than wtf happened. What was the vote for, how did it make it to the briefing and most importantly how many other minutes contain errors?
Imo it’s very very odd to put so much detail in the minutes to then say it’s an “honest mistake” that’s just a barbaric excuse.
Anyway the only thing this will do is put people off. This is entirely 100% the trusts fault but I can see the new person walking asap.
The whole situation is odd.
That’s the problem though TSO, on one hand the Board Meeting Minutes says it happened, then on the other their Social Media says it didn’t happen, and was a mistake etc.
CUOSC need to make an official statement to clarify exactly what has happened, and also to explain the chronic difference in the above.
Silence won’t wash with this one…
CUOSC need to make an official statement to clarify exactly what has happened, and also to explain the chronic difference in the above.
Silence won’t wash with this one…
That’s the problem though TSO, on one hand the Board Meeting Minutes says it happened, then on the other their Social Media says it didn’t happen, and was a mistake etc.
CUOSC need to make an official statement to clarify exactly what has happened, and also to explain the chronic difference in the above.
Silence won’t wash with this one…
I assume someone will be reading the Policies as we speak, as their appears to be a several issues here, and each will have their own procedure that will need followed.
They being the 'Tweet ' and it's content, the other being the co-opting or not as the case may be.
If minuted, then that is the Bible according to.......
If the minutes need changed, then someone somewhere has to raise a motion to amend, this has it's own procedure, I'm not sure of timings or when this can/cannot be done.
IMO MM has lied or at the least mislead members and should resign.
We were told no mention of co opting was made at the meeting on Wednesday yet their statement said this did happen.
MM tweeted to say a discussion wasn’t had - imo this is now misleading and should resign asap.
We were told no mention of co opting was made at the meeting on Wednesday yet their statement said this did happen.
MM tweeted to say a discussion wasn’t had - imo this is now misleading and should resign asap.
Jon Colman’s article has now been updated with quotes from the Trust.
Barmy…
As stated earlier, the hole is now even deeper than ever.
What did the other half of the Tweet say ? "The two things got confused, honest mistake "
What things ?
It appears the only confusion is the assumption ' Paul ' wanted to be co-opted onto the Board, but was never consulted on this, how often does that happen ?
As it is minuted, the right procedures should now be followed to amend the minutes, so a full and transparent record is kept for future reference.
Jon Colman’s article has now been updated with quotes from the Trust.
Barmy…
As stated earlier, the hole is now even deeper than ever.
What did the other half of the Tweet say ? "The two things got confused, honest mistake "
What things ?
It appears the only confusion is the assumption ' Paul ' wanted to be co-opted onto the Board, but was never consulted on this, how often does that happen ?
As it is minuted, the right procedures should now be followed to amend the minutes, so a full and transparent record is kept for future reference.
Must be something if we agree on something. You’re right!
MM has admitted wrong doing and has now resigned.
Right decision - you can’t mislead members.
Right decision - you can’t mislead members.
IMO MM has lied or at the least mislead members and should resign.
We were told no mention of co opting was made at the meeting on Wednesday yet their statement said this did happen.
MM tweeted to say a discussion wasn’t had - imo this is now misleading and should resign asap.
He did and he has.
My apologies for confusion. I was trying to act to protect Paul who did not want to be in the lime light at this time. I hope Colman's piece settles the issue. I have resigned from the trust this morning.
— Mark Middling (@mark_middling) May 16, 2022
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
Markovitch
,
Bumble
,
nobbyblue
,
SeepBladder
,
Salford6
,
Demonseye48
,
Whiteside
,
shaddon United
and 444 other guests