TOPIC: Should TheCumbrians.net be part of CUSG?

Let the debate rage on on the other thread. On here just use the voting buttons and if you feel like it gives your reasons. No arguing!

No from me. Reasons:

All these committees etc are tinpot and embarrassing.
It is created to give the illusion of fan engagement.
By doing so we'd be bending to the will of the current corrupt owners and would be complicit in allowing them to continue their dictator-like reign.

Ive voted yes if only so we can find out the crack then ridicule it.

Can't you add a "not bothered" option?

Ive changed my mind and have voted yes for the simple reason why should cusat and the decrepid trust have first dibs and say on our clubs matters when they treid to wreck it not too long ago ,theres some cracking ideas come from here and i would like to think that our opions /ideas are heard and its not just the same dullard crew making choices .
I want the three gimps gone as much as anyone but we do need fresh new faces to represent our fanbase .

I've voted yes, and here's why...

Yes, there are too many layers at present, and initially we'd add to it. But as folk have said, it's the same faces. Maybe we've a few ideas to suggest simplifying the whole fan side at CU. And if folk involved aren't interested in change, at least we could say (And on here openly) "Well, at least we've tried".

I've only heard of 1 Group who've reported back from Weds so far (Route 66, others may have but I've not seen/heard as I'm not involved in them). That's just not good enough IMO. We'd have a briefing on her within an hour of the meeting finishing as we believe transparency is essential at these type of things.

Another note, at our initial meeting, it came across to me as CUSG wasn't a platform for asking about Billionaires, Blue Yonder and the like (Not deliberately before anyone asks!). But from what I've heard from the meeting on Weds, these were asked. Take it from me, having heard this, we'd certainly ask these questions if folk wanted us to!

We'd be at the table to ask whatever the users of this Messageboard wanted asked. Granted the answer may be brief, but we wouldn't shirk from asking.

A yes from me. For years our fans have moaned about stuff on the various messageboards, and moaned a bit more that the club don't listen. I feel it would be great to communicate our concerns with the club, and have them resolved. If it doesn't work, we can leave, there's no pressure to stay in, but if it does, then everyone wins.

CCU wrote:
All groups had previously agreed to hold off releasing any info until a summary of the meeting is written by Claire (the Chair - accidental rhyme, sorry!), at which point they can all release the info to the relevant groups. With Route66 being a closed group, it's obviously not so easy to see that info is being published early. Everybody wants to be the first to post new information, doing it this way meant that everybody could be prepared to post on Facebook/Twitter/Forum etc around the same time.

So, the fact that some groups haven't released info yet isnt't because they're slow, it's because they'll be waiting for the meeting summary from Claire, and the agreed date/time before they should post any details.

My personal view, as a Poster not a Mod, is that's just not good enough in this day and age. Today's news is tomorrow's chip shop paper. Each Group should be able to go back and report ASAP on the Items discussed.

That's the point of these meetings IMO. Someone goes along from the various Groups, stuff is discussed, then fed back to the various Groups by their preferred method (In the case of the Messageboard, a post on here). Waiting for the nod shouldn't come into it...

Have i spoiled the thunder passing on info so quickly for the masses?.

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

cufcdeano wrote:
That would be acceptable if Claire posted her updates/summaries quickly rather than people having to wait ages for them to appear.

"All groups had previously agreed to hold off releasing any info until a summary of the meeting is written by Claire (the Chair - accidental rhyme, sorry!"

I was going to say yes until I saw this. Its a no from me!

nobbyblue wrote:
We think it should be the opposite though, and released quickly...

CheadleBlue wrote: No because that'd be the equivalent of voting for the Lib Dems in the 2010 General Election.

I said no debates on this thread.

cufcdeano - BANNED.
CCU - BANNED.
MRF - BANNED.
DeckchairBlue - BANNED.
CCU - BANNED AGAIN.

You boys are lucky I didn't volunteer when Deano announced he was looking for successors.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

cufcmike - BANNED for selling out. You would've been against this were you not part of La Dictadura.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

nobbyblue wrote:
Agree what's the point of the groups going if just going to release the same thing.

You can't make these things up honestly.

No obviously

Do you want them to release different info Mullen? What would be the point in that? The point is there are different groups - not everybody is part of the CUSAT facebook group, or reads the messageboard.

CCU wrote:
I think the way it's being done is correct - by different groups at the same time, but I do think the info should be released much quicker.

cufcdeano wrote:
No what I was trying to get at was, what's the point of the group with numerous sub groups all more/less saying the same thing having to wait until the notes are done so they all release exactly the same info at the same time.

Utterly pointless - might as well relay issues to one person IE Claire and cut out all the wasted time of multiple duplicate information.

To many different factions involved already. Agree that CUSG should be the one to release official information from meetings otherwise the communications are in danger of been miscommunicated by the various groups to meet their own agendas. Although CUSG should be aiming to get the information out much quicker so it is still relevant when it is released.
Maybe the groups could have an agreement that they won't post details until CUSG do but if it is not released in a certain time frame,24hrs, then they can then post it.

Good move by the Trust to insist the only person who makes them look speedy is down to the do the minutes.
I think all involved need to get a grip of the level of seriousness of these meetings. What would be the implications of any party issuing an update to their group ahead of any other? Nothing of any meaning is discussed!
Pointless meetings made worse by the silencing of all parties, who are happy to be silenced on the off chance of finding something out about the club.

Absolute farce. My vote is definitely YES if you can tell them your going to update the messageboard whenever you want. It would be a NO if your prepared to tow the line and wait a month until everyone have forgotten what they wanted asked in the first place.

No from me. Couldn't give two sh1tes how soon you tell me about the bogs in the Warwick or fundraising events.

F.ck the owners!

Aren't a good few folk who read/write on this forum a member of one of the groups anyway so are therefore already represented?

Theres no need to make a drama out of what is posted after these meetings.. the info came out quick which was forwarded so others could see... whats the problem in that.. ?? If thats a problem some need their heads looking at ffs.If i had attended the 1st place i would have posted the crack was on here..

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

Rumours in Town that several Moderators have multiple user names. Otherwise the vote would have been a landslide.

howoldboy wrote:
Seeing as it's Easter I'll give you 2/10...

CCU wrote:
2 Moderators with 10 Usernames?

howoldboy wrote:
Clearly doesn't know the job it is to approve usernames and approve posters. It's definitely not worth doing to get an extra couple of votes!

YES: 31

NO: 37

If you see Phil King this afternoon at the match, tell him we won't be joining this "CUSG" farce, show him a print off of the reasons why.

UTB

Considering the number of viewers on this board a surprisingly low turn out of voters for what I would say is a quite important decision for the mods and users

Mashie Niblick wrote:
Hardly a landslide against is it.

Didn't say it was.

Mashie Niblick wrote:
Exactly mashie, I also didn't think it be a landslide but the majority said no.

They didn't give Scotland independence because it was relatively close just like we shouldn't be sending anyone from here representing the messageboard.

"Unless there is a groundswell of opinion for us not to join, we will be accepting the invitation and look forward to working together with the other Groups within CUSG."

That was from the original thread proposing it.

There hasn't been, so they should join.

Maybe the majority who haven't voted just aren't bothered?!

Doesn't matter how many people have voted it's no so should be no.

But not my overall decision so leave it to you but I'll ask a simple question.

Are you any different to the 3 owners of the majority are saying No but you go along with it anyway?

Mullen103 wrote:
It's not my decision either, simply repeating what was out in the original question thread.

I agree more with CCU, I don't think many people are bothered, it just seems that the ones who are seem to be against, and they shout loudest.

DeckchairBlue wrote:
Irrelevant that, pal.

I voted yes for obv reasons. The more voices the better. Yes, i write the briefing...agreed because Nigel Davidson from CUOSC was going to do it but he has stopped attending. It was agreed for all parties to agree a release at the same time to prevent any oneupmanship. From my point of view I'm not fussed as long as it comes out. Anyway CUOSC take the minutes from the meeting and at the last meeting there was 4 board members there so they could still hold the admin side of things if they wanted to. I asked for help getting the briefing out sooner after the last meeting as it had been a tricky month personally & professionally alas no help came so there was an unfortunate delay.

There is definitely not a ban on what can be brought. There's a general groups feedback added on the agenda so the reps can feedback what their member discussing with them. It's up to the group reps to discuss things, which is what occurred last week.

Hope this clears up any confusion / concerns.

Claire_Like_Eh wrote:
As youve said elsewhere Claire, there may be more voices but is anyone listening?

What's the decision then? Majority against. Will the admin overrule a democratic vote?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Theyll try to discredit it then possibly change pension rules and the terms and conditions of all new members. Thats what usually happens in disputes like this.

This poll although interesting is irrelevant anyway. Who authorised it ? This forum is not by committee or cooperative or any other that dictates those who control it need take the any consideration to the posters views. Given the emotional responses given at times, it's a good job.

No one authorised. It was just get a more clear idea than you get from the other thread.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

What are the current votes? I can't see the poll to vote, or see the vote count on Tapatalk.

cufcdeano wrote:
Yes - 33
No - 39

What goes on at these meetings?

Can you ask the owners about the millionaire?
No
Can you ask the owners about Blue Yonder?
No
Is the £2 difference in match day and advance going to be scrappped?
No
Is there going to be better food and drink in the ground?
No
Is the leaking roof in the Warwick going to be fixed?
No
Is the back lane going to be resurfaced?
No

I've voted "Yes".

This is a trust forum, so it stands to reason that the forum should be represented at trust meetings.

Why would you expect anything different?

By continuing to post on this forum you continue to let the trust speak on behalf of you, whatever your views are.

i just voted no.