TOPIC: CUSG MEETING

There is a report in the CUOSC briefing this week. A few things stand out.

There were 6 fans representatives present,whilst there were 5 folk from the club, Phil King chaired the meeting. Not a lot of chance for independent thought there then. Not so much a fans group, more wipe your feet here exercise!

The fans rep had been discussed according to this report. SK had said they wanted at least 4 applicants. Well in the spirit of openness they claim to want, why weren't the fans given a clue regarding this? Nowhere did it say, we won't have a fans rep unless four folk apply. The position may have been advertised four times, but I would be very surprised if it was advertised anywhere in the week prior to entries closing.

So as it stands, according to the report , the club hope that the board of CUOSC and CUSG will fulfill the job of the fans rep. I really do not understand how the club think that could possibly work.

If normal steel did his job properly then we wouldn't need a fans rep.

Lufbrablue wrote: yes been said before he IS the fans rep effectively!

Bumble wrote:
Bumble could you post a link to where you saw this please as i.m clearly looking in the wrong place.

It was in the CUOSC weekly briefing email, that I think all members of CUOSC, including the season ticket holders get.

The weekly briefing email is a big improvement on the silence that went before. A lot of the stuff that they include in it is readily available elsewhere but it is a step forward in communications.

The same report is now on the OS.

I just saw the fans rep position advertised once - I had a feeling what was going to happen so no surprises. I agree though in that they was no pre requisites to state they must be 4, they change the rules as it suits them. What happened if the best fans rep going applied, had supporters backing but that person was the only applicant. The whole thing stinks.

The compromise of the trust and CUSG doing the fans rep position is an absolute joke. The trust haven't done a thing for supporters not a sausage and the whole point of the fans rep was to be independent of all groups. The CUSG group had a club rep chairing the meeting ffs!

We'd debated several proposals - which we were going to raise/debate on here prior to any meeting - which included more clarity for specific roles (Fans Rep being wholly independent being one), the number of folk at meetings, the number of CU representatives, possible refocusing of the actual aims of any CUSG, and free speech and immediate reporting accessible to all from meetings.

But too many folk took pet about us possibly going, so we decided not to. Hey ho...

With Claire stepping down, there's a danger this potentially useful vehicle will morph into nothing.

CCU wrote:
Well I guess I was one of those who "took pet". I actually thought there was a post on here asking folk for their opinions and I gave mine. I didn't realise that the post only asked for opinions that agreed with the proposal.

I thought the whole CUSG thing was likely to encroach on the Fans Rep work. I really hoped a Fans Rep, who was democratically elected from the whole fan base might be a step forward. There were people at the meeting who would, in my opinion, make excellent Fans reps, but they cannot speak for more than a small minority of fans unless they have gone through an election process.

As it stands, CUSG is the club asking fans to do some things they haven't the time or the inclination to do. Nothing wrong in that, there has always been folk willing to help their club, me included. It helps lower league clubs survive. However to dress it up as a fans initiative is plainly ridiculous, even the chair is some one from the club rather than a fan.

Bumble wrote:
That's not the case. Any proposals (Including the original shall we go) would've been debated on here first, and if the majority weren't interested or didn't agree, it wouldn't be continued (Again, part of deciding not to attend was the majority didn't want). We were merely going to offer some opinions for debate. Indeed, we planned to ask the Board users if they had any ideas for discussion, as it certainly wasn't just about us!

To be honest I don't think anybody should be attending these meetings while they are being chaired by someone from within the club. I also agree with the decision for the messageboard not to go.

However previously we had a fans rep, now we don't so that does change things slightly. But on the whole the meetings presently are a waste of time and SK and PK are supposedly available anytime for meetings for fan issues.

For me Mullen, this is how I would like to see it go...

Only Nigel Dickinson should be at the meeting from CUFC, as he's our Supporter Liasion Officer.

The meetings should be chaired by the independently elected Fans Rep, who meets Nigel as Club representative, and 1 Rep from each body who go. Any more is too many, too many cooks and all that!

Nigel then goes back to the Club and meets with Phil, Suzanne, Media, Ticketing etc and relays queries etc. He then brings replies to the next meeting as part of the Agenda.

Far more simple, organised and once in full swing, useful.

Yes agree

If only things could be that simple!

I wouldn't even have Dickinson there. It should be what the title implies. Any matters arising should then be taken to him by the chair. There's absolutely no need for the club to be represented unless they're asked to for a specific reason. Are they continuing because certain people think they've got a little bit of power?

Only 175 pin badges left more importantly

I do think the folk that go to the meetings, go because they want to help the club. I don't think it's about power. The disabled facilities are very important to anyone with friends and/or family who need various adaptions so they can come to, and enjoy (yeah, I know, haha), the matchday. Well done for raising the money selling pin badges. Audio for the blind wouldn't happen without folk buying them.

A lot to be said for the way CCU would want to structure meetings, however it all falls down without a Fans Rep to chair it.

Agreed, sadly the failure of the Club to proceed with the Fans Rep role is a hammer blow. As said, they'd be independent and ideal to chair CUSG...

Bumble wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up Bumble that explains why i couldnt find it in an arena that available to the public not just members

But yes i.ve seen it on the O/S site now

Well that meeting must of lasted all of about 10 mins and thats the third time theyve mentioned applying for the other 10 grand just how many of them does it take to fill in the bloody form for gods sake.

Mullen103 wrote:
NOBODY SHOULD BE ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS PREFERABLY TILL NIXON AND JENKINS ARE NO LONGER AT THE CLUB BUT CERTAINLY TILL THEY REMOVE THE SHARE ISSUE THREAT FROM THE TRUST AND ADMIT THAT THE BILLIONAIRE AND BLUE YONDER ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER FU*CKIN BULLSHIT.

I despair.

Lufbrablue wrote: I haven't got a clue what Norman Steel looks like. Says a lot doesn't it?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

"But too many folk took pet about us possibly going, so we decided not to. Hey ho..."

Yeah that's exactly what happened isn't it?
How dare people have a different opinion eh?

Also you should be grateful, as you'd currently be participating in a sham - so your integrity (and by extension that of this board and it's patrons) has been preserved, such as it is.

Would we? Nobody knows how it would've turned out. We might have resigned after one meeting of folk wanted us to!

CCU wrote:
Your time and effort would be better deployed in trying to persuade those still attending to stop and to stop now.

I dont get how the two from the trust can be in the same room as Jenkins minions given what hes trying to do.

I hope your a Brexitter deeksme. I voted yes to this as I thought the best way of getting change was for someone to go on our behalf and put our concerns forward. Think I'll now refer to you as Boris

Bumble wrote:
Hard to get a 4 person shortlist without 4 applicants?

If i had applied...that would have made 4..you really think i would be considered after recent events ..so that excuse of 4 on a list is complete bollocks and most sane folk know it.

The outcome would have been the same....with more excuses

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

markredfox73 wrote:
Claws down MRF. I'm not making excuses for the club but Bumble is claiming that the whole 4 person shortlist doesn't give any sort of indication that they were hoping for 4 people to apply.

Thing is if they do not understand why there isnt loads of applicants...( which after the statement by SK blaming fans)
There is just no hope of communications and honest transparency materialising within.

Always blaming others but never themselves...

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

Mouldy wrote:
I'm not saying that they didn't "hope" for four people to apply, but I ( maybe its just me having missed it in the rules) I didn't realise that there had to be four candidates before having a fans rep could go ahead. The "four candidate rule" isn't standard practice as far as I am aware. In local politics it seems acceptable to have just two candidates or even one person elected unopposed.

I had thought that the idea of four candidates was there in case dozens of folk applied, so rather than have a page full of candidates the choice could be whittled down to four, rather than four being an arbitrary number either way.

Had there been 5 applicants they'd prob have said MRF and Mullen didn't meet the criteria so still didn't have 4.

They can protest all they want that they advertised it 4 times

But if they really wernt using it as a way to get out of it in the week before it closed why didnt they just say " were disappointed in the low numbers applying this year and can we remind you if we dont reach our quota of 4 we will have to scrap the election and the post."

But i think we all know why they didnt do that dont we

Did they ever say 4 was the number needed to progress? If I ever applied for a job and found out that I didn't get a fair hearing because there was a lower number of applicants applying than expected I would be pretty pissed off.

Dancingbear wrote:
Dancingbear, my points at the time were that I wanted an independent voice to be critical from the outside - this board. Supporters were already variously represented by CUOSC, the travel groups and disabled rep, and even if those were groups you weren't part of , you still had the fans rep Claire, who posted here and was approachable in person and various social media. So, any concerns you had were easy to put forward. If you disagree with that, then fair enough - but folk saying that this viewpoint is "taking the pet" is hardly helpful - I'd not want someone that closed minded representing me at a meeting anyway!

The Boris bit is a low blow

bruntonpete wrote:
Exactly why i'm a little pissed off to be honest. I bothered to do a thorough application taking it seriously this time. Wasted my time really but I cannot be held accountable ,along with the other 3 applicants, that no body else applied, it is entirely unfair!

I'm not blowing my trumpet here and don't get me wrong and its in no offense to the other two applicants but I think I would of won easily. Thats why the email i received from SK was disgusting and personal and obvious they didn't want me in this position at all. The football league are very interested in this and are asking for all copies of emails etc to see if theres a discriminatory issue here, but as the football league mentioned in their emails its the clubs decision at the end of the day.

I haven't a clue who else applied but I do know of one or two people who were thinking about it but, because of the debacle when Claire resigned, decided not to.

The real shame is that the club handled the situation with Claire so badly, and having done so, didn't seem to realise how that would put off other people from applying. . . or maybe just were happy to let the whole thing die a death.

If 4 had applied they'd have said that they wanted a shortlist of 5. 24 people could have applied for all we know and this is just the excuse given.

Mullen103 wrote:
I'm not entirely certain what you're doing here if you're not blowing your own trumpet! How can you be so sure "would of won easily" (sic)?

chesterviabothel wrote: Maybe he was the other two candidates as well....

Northumbrian wrote:
Possibly. Does that mean there's three of them that take a blind lad to the match?

I didn't want to come across as arrogant but knowing the other applicants it was an easy decision.

I'm not saying I was the best for the job, far from it, just the more suited out of the 3 that applied. I'm sure they were far more able people than me that didn't apply for reasons known they didn't. I thought a fans rep was important and although extremely reluctant I decided to apply seriously. It was more a case of applying as no one else was going too and if i was to remain vocal and complain all the time then it was only right to apply.

At the end of the day whether it was me or not is irrelevant, the club and the position are far more important than me!

The reason the fans rep on the board was scrapped was because Nixon and Jenkins were no longer in favour of it.
The four applicants rule was just a pathetic excuse.

I disagree as Jenkins and Nixon would love someone in this front line position. So as long as they do everything they say, agree with everything they say and ask no questions.

Look on the bright side Mullen-it cost you nothing to realise that you are not worthy enough to sit at the king's table-it cost me £40k in professional fees to find it out.

There are many around the likes of myself,Robin Brown,Graham Mossop etc who are successful not because of a gift or inheritance but because we have been educated and worked hard,running businesses and employing many people in good jobs.Yet we are not considered worthy of the influence in the Club.

You got off lightly mate-enjoy the moment as I think it's better to be outside the tent just now with the current balance sheet relying entirely on largesse.

To repeat,no billionaire,no investors willing to invest in the current regime.Impasse but nothing is forever.

Laffy ,nice to see you have come off that dignified fence recently and opened up a bit more on your thoughts on the situation and how you were shafted.I know your piss is boiled marra.

Sent from my GT-I8200N using Tapatalk

I agree - Just a shame the position is a no goer for anyone.

Still annoyed that the email from SK was a personal attack, now knowing the other applicants, and accused of trying to make a name for yourself. Which is far from the truth as we just want to improve the club however we can. But yes it cost me nothing to be accused of something your not.

I've maybe been fortunate working for myself and working for companies I have that encourage accountability, holocracy and professionalism and simply the best people for the job. It frustrates me in that we have some great business minds within Cumbria yourself included that have tried to help but get pushed aside, ridiculed and more. I don't understand it as surely if you run a business youd want the best of the best and help from anywhere!

Yes-it has been difficult to keep my aspbergers in check.(joke)

We all have differing opinions of each other but sitting on the outside of a tent largely populated by non achievers(the evidence is clear) has been challenging,particularly when many of the ideas I gathered from fans are supposedly being implemented.

Of course it is still possible to 'buy' yourself a seat in the box but this clearly carries no influence with those who purport to know best-and frankly sitting in the box was never of any interest to me.I like sitting in the stand with the boys.

Without AJ,there is nothing in the current status quo and the sooner this is sorted,the sooner the club can move on.We are surely better than mediocrity and 'managing' through previous generosity of AJ

Laffy wrote: laffy could you not invoke some kind of "breach of promise" ? For obviously being led up a very expensive garden path by the amateurs in charge!