TOPIC: CUOFC get a broadside..

From Claire on Twitter. Surprised there's nothing on here about it.

Spill crack then

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

Second post on here. She's since confirmed that those WERE the questions that were asked on behalf of us all.

boards.footymad.net/carlisleunited-mad/2109368772/

I assume Norman Steel has nothing to say.

Lufbrablue wrote:
No change there then.

Well done Claire for exposing the rot at the core of our football club and The Trust. It's sad to see but good to confirm what we all really knew all along.

The only people with the means to organise meaningful action against the owners don't have the balls to do it and have been shown to be cowards at board meetings. No doubt they'll roll over for the owners on the share issue and never do anything meaningful in an attempt to remove them from power.

What happened to the people that organised the protests against Knighton?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I think they'll fight it loser, but whether thay have the guts for a long fight (and God forbid it should go to court) I seriously doubt. I'm still not clear what part, if any, Steele played in all this.

loser wrote:
Are you seriously missing Alan Steel and Kate Rowley?

There surely has to be a middle way. I was hoping Deano and that other lad were it. Would be interesting to see if Deano's as enthusiastic as he was to begin with.

Trust should sell their 25% shares to me for a quid then a new consortium can be created...folk with balls to stand up and ask the questions only apply for membership

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

The Truth will out ......

seesaw50 wrote:
Fixed it for you

She's not holding back, good on her. Wonder if anyone will try to claim she's been hacked?

Well done Claire, You should of done this while fans rep!

She echoed what some of us were saying re the trust for a while in that they are a clique, only respond to members who they are friendly with, have an agenda and aren't open. The trust ran a survey but haven't a clue what the results were. It also seems Jason was shot down from the trust board for posting a tweet asking whether all members should vote, the one that got 99%.

Mike (Deano) comes across on here as someone thats there to take the bait for the trust and was likely only voted on so they say they have new blood but overall nothings changed.

Members should have the option to immediately vote no confidence in NS. As Claire, AJ and JN say he offers nothing in meetings. NS doesn't communicate with supporters and sits in the directors box at away games, a big hanger on.

It would be quite audacious, someone claiming that Claire had been hacked on her behalf.

Very interesting though, this. Claire seems to have won herself quite a few fans over the last week, where people can see that she's been professional all the way through the year but now feels like she has something to say, and it's appropriate to do so. Looking forward to seeing some sort of response to her complaints.

Armo wrote:
Didn't know it was them who organised the protests! If it was they still did a f*ck load more than the current mob are doing.

I think the Trust are pursuing the right course of action as per their notice last week.That they have employed John Wilson to defend the 25.4pc on the basis of inadequate information should give all some confidence that the Trust board are on the case.As with most Shareholder Agreements,both sides are usually compelled to act reasonably-I suspect why there is a charm offensive in train at the Club and also why the Trust cannot just say no to any proposal without some sort of professional evaluation.No doubt if John Wilson gets a detailed plan then it will be circulated for consideration by the Trust membership.

I do NOT think open warfare is a solution for either the Trust or any stakeholder and certainly not within your own camp

In reality its 2 stagnant obstacles which are holding the club back....in other words the club is royally fkd over.

No end in sight to regimes.
Are folk just gonna twine on social media about it or we gonna get off our lardy arses and make some noise about it..???

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

markredfox73 wrote:
If someone gave you a magic wand Mark, what would you like the trust and owners to do - a 2 word answer is fine

Laffy wrote:
I think we understand that and thats fine.

What Claire was getting at was the lack of communication, the lack of any action by NS, the trust clique and the non representation of supporters. I don't see any reason for her to holdback.

Mullen103 wrote:
Make your mind up Mullen! You were criticising Jason yesterday for posting that tweet, until Claire backed him up for doing so. I agreed with it personally, engaging with members/supporters should never be frowned upon.

I'll certainly not be accepted as being there to take the bait only - the membership voted me onto the board, not the current board themselves. I agree though, there has been little change, and this year has opened my eyes a lot. It's been harder than I had anticipated.

I'm determined though. Change has to happen. But it can happen. There are 1600 members eligible to vote at the AGM in July, and 5 Board Members up for re-election to the board. If ever there has been an opportunity to bring about that change, this is it!

Good on Claire for speaking up about her Board Room experience. Unless you're in that environment, nobody knows truly what goes on behind closed doors. Fans need to be represented in the Board Room, it's absolutely vital. And if it's not happening because of resistance from the club, then it's important that fans are aware, otherwise it will come back on whoever is representing them.

I think given recent events that the current encumbants continue with John Wilson discussions but that all should put themselves up for re election-thereafter,an annual rotation with max 3/5 years on the board.Its what I proposed for the club itself to avoid concentration of power and drift.With the Trust now a much bigger entity,it's imperative to update things and I would also restrict the Trust board to a maximum of 5 with a strong chairman.

cufcdeano wrote:
Yep, the tweet was cringeworthy really with the result showing that. What I was getting at is that it shouldn't of even been tweeted and should of been so damn obvious what the answer was going to be.

But as has been said, he's been shot down from within - but hes happy to go along with it. But says everything about the trust that people weren't happy with a comms like that going out.

Out of interest Laffy, are you putting yourself forward for any of the 5 positions up for re-election?

Steady, - like many others, I am very unhappy with the Trust,and the way they came about the shareholding. Particularly the way they have conducted themselves, and damaged our Club. If I was AJ, it would take alot for me to do business with such a negative destructive organisation. That aside, this is not the time for to much disruption, difficult negotiations are ahead.

So, the only question for AFTER, is (and I think we all know the answer) is the CUOSC Board in it's current form fit to take us all forward ??

As for the Brunton Pensioners, we are stuck with em..................

cufcdeano wrote:

Its been reported by more than one source this last couple of weeks that the trust representative sits on his bum and says nowt so its highly unlikely hes gonna be kicking and screaming for the seat at the holdings board table. Id be unhappy at the news if 1. i was a member and 2. if it came as any surprise.

loser wrote:
You must of missed the board a couple of months back, some fella was explaining to me how it was the Trust who got rid of Knighton - Courtenay had nowt to do with it. And aye they did a [censored] load more. If you mean deciding he was "to busy" for elections for Chair for one. And for the other, agreeing in court to never have anything to do with the Trust again (after being caught lying to the court). Oh, and in a fit of petulance, refusing to release the CUOSC domain. Aye, they did a lot.

cufcdeano wrote:
Doesn't matter if they do. The fact is, nice guy or not, threaten to use it or not, Norman Steel has the ability to call in his loan if he's not the Chair. That is the fact of the matter and people will vote on that basis. If this vote was held on 1st August then it'd be the same old 2 or 300 voting. The ST holders are, in general, apathetic and unlikely to vote full stop. I'd be surprised if half of them remember they are members of the Trust. Let's see what the returns like eh?

I don't disagree Armo. Can't remember off the top of my head what the voting numbers/%'s were at the AGM last year, but I'd be surprised if the number of votes reaches 20/25%. Depends how much effort goes into advertising the fact that the AGM is taking place. In years gone by there's been very little. I think CUOSC have the email address of approx 1100-1200 members so there's ample time and opportunity to let a lot of people know, as well as at pre-season friendlies / fun day in July etc for those who don't use email, or those we a contact email address for - typically a ST holder who's data was passed to us by the club. .

Yeah, I can see your trying Deano. The problem you've got, i'm sorry to say, is the average fan won't engage with the Trust because of all their history. And the Trust won't change until it's voted in.

I can't see how you break that cycle.

Laffy wrote: agree totally in the light of revelations a strong chairman is required asap. Perhaps this is why there has been no movement to appoint a seat on holdings !!

Andrew provided a good solution earlier, providing there is enough interest going forward. Limiting (and reasonably) the number of years somebody can be the 1921 director, or on the board of CUOSC would be a start.

That only works if there are people prepared to take over.

What happened to the people that organised the protests against Knighton?

People on Boards the likes of this one drove them out because they wouuldnt lick Storys Arse .

I have stated many times it would be inconceivable to work with the present regime.I would support the Trust financially if they moved on but I doubt I would want any active involvement-I have had my moment in the sun

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:
Who would that be then Northern? The lad who hardly went to a game before the Trust and was "to busy" to stand for election as Chair so would just continue anyway? Or the lass who agreed to have nowt to do with the Trust after perjuring herself?

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:
I quite enjoyed licking Storys arse in those days. We achieved the highest league positions ive seen since i started supporting the club in 1989.

Armo wrote:
This is the problem Armo. My concern is that there isn't. I know I'm bleating on about this, but there are 1600+ members this year, so the perfect opportunity for others to get involved, and change the way CUOSC operates. If that change doesn't occur, CUOSC will soon be back down to 300-400 members again. I'd be surprised if there's ever an opportunity as good as this for a long time.

cufcdeano wrote:
Well, i'm a member for another year after this one (voted for you and the other new lad last time and against Frank Beattie).

It's a big ask but you should put yourself up for the top job. As you yourself say, who else is going to put themselves up for it? You'd have half a chance too.