TOPIC: I know you worry about my whereabouts...

Agree Moorlad, but SP isn't on the holdings board anymore its just Nixon and Jenkins.

The trust should have a seat on the board of the holdings company, especially as they own a quarter of it. I'd be shouting and screaming but the trust aren't, why?

Claire communicates with us and gets a lot of unfair criticism to be fair. The trust hardly communicate and it is a clique with a few side people like Mike. Mike knows nothing about, he who must not be named, involvement but the former and older board members do.

i'm sick of moaning about the trust now though, i just bang my head on a brick wall and end up with a sore head everyday.

They are too many cliques in carlisle united in all areas. Things won't improve until these stop but more importantly the owners start being open and truthful.

Thankfully the footballs better, although we are dropping of a bit lately, so distracts people from the back room issues but we will never reach our potential with these in charge. Small club my arse we easily sold out v Everton 17,000 will be there.

Does anyone know if it is usual for a football trust to not have a seat on the holdings board? We're not the only club with this model, do others have similar issues?

Do our trust ever communicate with other "successful" trusts, about things they are doing to engage fans, best practices etc?

Cheadle, it would depend entirely on the way each individual club is set up in terms of companies. In some cases there is no holding company, in others a trust may have shares in a football club but not the holding company. In our case over 25% of the holding company (and therefore over 23.25% of the football club) is owned by the trust. I'm certain there are clubs with trust members on boards, there will also be more than just us without. It is the size of their shareholding which is the thing here for me, it would be amazing if somebody had that level of holdings without being a member of the board (if they wanted to) at most companies.

Mullen, I know Steve Pattison resigned as a director of the holding company (I think that might have been for convenience rather than anything else though, and I'm sure he'll be back at some stage). Do you think he gets as little information from Nixon and Jenkins as the trust do? Or do you think (like I do) that he's kept fully up to date with everything?

The other thing we now have with the trust, this season, is that they've been cosying up to the club instead of asking the difficult questions. Fair play to them, this has resulted in an enhanced membership through season ticket sales, but where does that now put them? They appear to have set themselves above all other groups of supporters, and that seems to have been supported by the club. It may well be they have more members (for now) than other groups, but everything now (from other groups) seems to be having to go through the trust. What happens if they do get a place on the holding company board? Will they just happily join the Nixon and Jenkins (with Pattison lurking) club, and sit in the tent pissing out on us all, or will they ask questions and vote against them? I know where my money would be.

It's all well and good twining about the situation on this board (and I understand the consensus on here is pretty damming) but what does the average guy think?

I live in Manchester so it's hard for me to judge if the general mood is as pissed off with the situation as it is on here. I'm not sure it is.

I know the exact same circumstances won't exist elsewhere but if the trust could go armed with information e.g. suchandsuch a club has less shareholding than us but does have a seat on the holdings board, why can't we?

I think it would be hugely beneficial to have communication between similar organisations. Like a mentor to our trust if you like.

Cheadle, your presupposing that the Trust are not happy with the status quo when all evidence is to the contrary.

I'm never sure what the consensus is to be honest armo, a lot of people just go along, watch the football, go home and never have anything to say about the way the club is run. There are also large numbers of people who support anything and everything the owners say or do, some still believe in the billionaire. There are also some who just shake their heads and laugh, know it's something stupid and ignore it. Then there are a fair number on here, including me, who keep going on about it.

My suspicion is, that as a percentage of the average crowd at Brunton Park we would be a fairly small minority, I do think more people are beginning to have doubts though, or perhaps were before the floods.

Cheers Moorlad, it's kind of what I figured. Not great really as it means nothing is likely to change.

It's ironic isn't it, the upturn in the football may be the worst thing that could of happened to the club recently.

Armo wrote: To be fair, Deano seems to be well intentioned and communication has become more frequent recently.

These new appointments and increased activity could be signs of change, or they could be attempts by the clique to keep a lid on discontent. Hopefully it's the former.

Armo wrote:
It is ironic, and it has brought the players and the fans closer together, it has also shown Phil, Suzanne and Claire in a very good light, which means the recognition the club has got all over the country is as a community club. Interestingly all the owners have had to do has been sit and watch.

But they are just puppets on a string in reality....They will have been spoon fed bullshit from the horsemen to make out there is something going on..

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

Moorlad - CUOSC have chased up the position on the holdings board. JN/AJ wanted to tie it in with their investment proposal to CUOSC back in November. CUOSC agreed that we would pursue alternate (more beneficial) investment ideas, which as you're aware includes members of the local business community. If that progresses, so too will the position on the holdings board. If JN/AJ knock the proposal back, then we're back to square one, at which point it (position on the holdings board) will need to be addressed with more urgency.

On the investment front, last I was told was that AJ/JN wanted more detail, more "meat on the bone" - that was 3 weeks ago. I would expect an update of some sort soon.

Thanks for that update Deano. The seat on the holdings board, though, shouldn't depend on the outcome of these discussions. I understand that the proposal probably includes that as part of it, but after what they initially said in late summer (all the standing down, new directors and seats on the boards) surely this ought to be of the utmost importance to the trust's board, and they should be pressing for it regardless.

Interestingly your comment about "more meat on the bone" is somewhat similar to what I've heard. They're being intransigent and a bit petty. Obviously I've not got any details of what the deal is, and it may not be at all right for the club. I think we all know it will only go through if it is right for one particular individual. I initially thought there was going to be news about this almost 3 weeks ago, but I heard that it was put back due to holidays and things, but I guess we now have everyone in place and something might happen soon.

My view is that when it is knocked back, which I have little doubt it will be, the whole thing should be made very public indeed. From my understanding there is no involvement from Laffy, so that ought to make it easier for some, because there will be no perceived dodgy business practices, and there should be various different sizes of pots for all and sundry to piss into.

cufcdeano wrote:
More meat on the bone?!? Seriously, those fellas have got some nerve. It's ok for them to criticise a successful businessman like Lapping, make up some fake investor to try and put everyone off and claim they are propping the club up while burdening it with increasingly large loans that we'll never be able to afford to pay back (certainly not with those clowns in charge). But as soon as someone comes in with an alternative proposal, these "reluctant custodians" do whatever they can to delay, prevaricate and spoil.

They are an embarrassment as directors of our football club but as human beings they are far worse. The sooner they're long gone the better. I think I'd prefer the prospective investor that turned up the last time we had a big cup tie at Brunton Park than those two parasites.

jelly wrote:
What Andrew Lapping has done since he was rubbished so publicly by the owners has been extremely dignified. He's shown the 3 of them up really, he just seems to have said "ah well, it wasn't to be, it might have cost a few bob, but I'll put it to bed and get on with life". Even in the face of them swiping his ideas and selling them on as their own, he hasn't complained, pretty much because he realises that those ideas were there in the first place because they were the best thing for the club, at least as he saw it. In my view he's actually come out of this looking far better than those 3.

I'm not saying everything in that deal was perfect in my view, and I know there were people who disagreed with it completely, and for what might well have been good reasons. Just that he has come across so much better than the way they portrayed him.

Coming out of it looking far better than those 3 - not exactly the highest of praise!

I suppose not.

cufcdeano wrote: Really?

khg 2 wrote:
What do you want me to say? I'm not going to put a timescale on things, because I haven't a clue myself. I can't say 5-10 days, and then not deliver because it'll make me/CUOSC look daft. I could have left that last sentence out, but then most likely would've been asked 'when can we expect an update?'

cufcdeano wrote:
Given the trusts performance or lack of in the last ten years you cant blame people for being sceptical about waiting for updates from the trust. Hopefully the trust will prove the doubters like me wrong but i wont be holding my breath

Re inestment update

I Heard it's either now, in a bit, later, the summer, next season or when his negotiations end.

Unless it isn't though. It's under review. But not actual review ofcourse.

Deano , I understand they are looking for investment and it is great the supporters club is seeking this with local guys but what exactly was the response when you asked JN & AJ about the billionaire. They may have said something!

Probably covered by a confidentiality agreement so cant say owt.

After 250 days it is irrelevant. There is clearly no rich person interested enough. If they were taken in by someone that's fine. Come clean. Look an idiot for a while and let's laugh about it and move on. We have all ballsed up at sometime. The fact that it drags on and on just makes everything worse. These are businessmen acting like kids. For gods sake just get things out in the open and share. The little things that Claire and others are doing suddenly become relevant and worthwhile. I really applaud and thank her for her efforts but we need answers on the bigger issues first before her job becomes relevant.
The club has so much scope and potential and it is being ran like something from the dark ages.

bruntonpete wrote:
Exactly the same as what has been publicised - that they had been talking to the agent of somebody who they believed to be a billionaire. I don't personally believe there was ever any serious interest myself, I can't speak for anybody else.

I think the same but like I said, just open the lines of communication, admit fault, shake a head and say it was a genuine mistake and move on.
The club is worth more than silly reputations.

Reputations have long gone with a catalogue of blunders and [censored] ups since they took over. They shafted the Lapping deal deliberately.. no being led down a merry dance from another source.. the buck stops with them and they need ousted soon

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

Many mistakes have been made by them and they do tend to treat folk who want to help with disregard but I do believe they love cufc. Misguided, old fashioned or simply ignorant at times who knows. It is easy to criticise from the outside at times but they have let themselves down at every turn recently. The biggest error is the lack of respect and communication from those at the top. The longer this has gone on the worse things have become. This is not the 1980s where fans had no say and their opinions were not heard and yet we are treated as though it was. PK and SK among others know what is needed but until the club learn to communicate we will remain behind many of our smaller but more progressive peers.

markredfox73 wrote:
A few angry blokes on a messageboard is hardly masses is it pal ?

The main problem, in my view, with them coming out and saying "we made a mistake and got strung along by a billionaire", is that the whole charade at the time was so obviously invented to allow them to sideline the Lapping bid in the first place. There is absolutely no way I will believe that they were ever involved in any serious discussions for investment in the club by a massively rich benefactor.

That particular lie, in fact, achieved pretty much what it set out to do for the horsemen. It got rid of the Lapping bid, which would have curtailed their power, it ensured they could hang on to power because Fred's loan was gone, it allowed them to implement parts of Lapping's proposals, and it didn't alienate too many fans (a few dissenting voices on here won't make them lose any sleep). They appear to have just about weathered that storm, the way the team has played, the media interest because of the floods, the work of the football club board and the cup runs have seen to that. All they now need to do is stay quiet for the rest of the season, show good profits in next year's accounts and they're sorted for at least another couple of years.

They have no intention of seeking investment, or giving up their power.

Get used to it...the cuedos of Statler and Waldorf is going up by the day. Improved performances, improved footfall, Liverpool receipts, Everton receipts, selling players and of course you can't beat a right good insurance claim !!

Everyday they sit tight and ' request more information ' buys time, and at the moment time is there friend as the balance sheet looks better and better.

But what if Moorlad, as has been suggested that a certain someone conspired with another certain someone to invent the billionaire and AJ and JN were duped.

I do now honestly believe that at a point AJ thought they was a billionaire interested.

If they come out and say they were duped they will look incredibly silly

Time is there friend at the moment, a situation/event will arise that get's them of the hook.

Why has J Coleman stopped pushing the question ??

thesilentone wrote:
A draw on sunday wont harm their position either.

Mullen103 wrote:
That's a fair point Mullen, but I'm not convinced that either of them are actually that foolish. The pair of them have been fairly astute business people in their time, and I'm fairly certain they'd want a bit more than a nod and a wink to make them believe there was something like that in the pipeline. It might be the case that Mr Jenkins was initially led to believe there was something going on, but surely he'd have checked.

thesilentone wrote:
I believe he might have some knowledge of the deal that is currently being discussed so he has stopped putting pressure on at the moment, expect to see some more from him when this one falls through.

It's kudos, by the way.