There were some that met the Club and representing fans that were very strong advocates for the stand moves.
That’s not correct. People were picking seats in North Stand by mid-May. The Trust were not an entity until 31st Dec. The evictions had already happened, over 5 months earlier. At this point the committee were still self elected. CTWD did not mention merging to become a Trust until Oct 2014 when they also put up prospective aims, visions & objectives for consultation with supporters. Three months after the eviction. The Upcoming Trust (still CTWD - a single aim protest group) didn’t have a name until Dec 18th 2014 never mind a mandate to protest about stand evictions that had happened 5 months earlier. CTWD did publish a report on the successful Stand move in November 2014 in which they reported it was widely accepted that the move had improved the atmosphere. A pedant if you complained? Whose money do you think should have been used to fund the campaign? People had donated to a single aim group & you’re suggesting those donations could have been diverted without a mandate to fund a different campaign? What if people who had donated agreed with the move? Would they had been a pedant?
Those bits say a lot. You're stuck on the actions of a group spending your coppers rather than considering the actions of individuals and its impact on fellow fans, who you clearly care nothing for.
My coppers? You wanted CTWD to take up your fight. They couldn’t. You’re bitter about it. The committee could have landed themselves in trouble if they had diverted funds to campaign on your behalf. As individuals they could have done what they wanted. Their actions show what they wanted. Apart from whinging & getting bitter what did you do?
You haven't a clue. If I'm bitter, it's about individuals in that group or at least associate with it. I It's you that misguidedly stick to your incorrect the claim. As for what I did, I and others had several meetings with the club and others, amongst other things. We didn't have the luxury of time, and we're hampered by some fans being advocates for the move that turned out to be a disaster as predicted. What you describe as a 'whine' was at least as important as the name change for the long term. The two issues are linked. Yes, I and other's asked if the group would help after some members of it were strong advocates for what turned out to be the mess it was being predicted to be. They wouldn't partly because they strongly backed it at the time, if not as a group decision, as a individuals, with no real thought on how it affected so many people, and how it would send a message to the club that they could do as they pleased. It gave a green light for upper west etc. What was requested would have cost nothing, nor committed the group to anything, and even that was too much. It was all very short sighted, as it has cost them credibility and members and topped up your precious financial pot and given them a stronger mandate. The fact you still try to belittle those events and ignore the fact that the downturn was predicted and ignored, makes you look ignorant and selfish.
Belittle them? It didn’t happen as you imagine. If you’re pissed off with individuals name them & not a group they were associated with. The stand move has never really had a proper chance. I don’t believe we’ll see the if it is or isn’t a success until we have new owners. You asked a group who couldn’t help, but had individuals involved with it, who backed something you didn’t, to help you? Why? Yet you call others ignorant. You could have got yourself organised, connected with like minded individuals, set up a group of your own & campaigned against your issue instead of trying to hijack an already established single aim group who’s individual committee members didn’t have the same view as you. You may have had more success & who knows maybe still sat in your original seat. Is everybody who doesn’t agree with you ignorant & selfish or are you just a big wet blanket?
One of your mistakes is to stick to a belief that simply isn't true, and then to build your argument on that. Get organised as you suggest in a matter of weeks if not days? Oh, hang on, quite a few of us managed that. No mean feat in the close season, with people scattered to the winds and fellow fans going against it. Imagine if someone would let us use a central point to co-ordinate others. Oh, and we were not trying to block the move, as you keep clinging to, we'd accepted that was a **** up we'd all have to suffer the consequences of. What we were focusing on, was keeping groups together that had watched each others family's grow over the years, and created a decent community among the wider football family. We'd limited the damage to our own group, and wanted to help others do the same. City til we die, and all that. You seeing that as a bitter whinge says far more about you than me. You seem to ignore the elements that don't suit your defence of the group who you pay a couple of pence to think for you.
Close season? The move was announce in-season. Plenty of time to swap numbers. Organise a meet up & get your seats all together.
Ben have a look at this. https://www.not606.com/threads/whose-idea-was-this-seat-move.263788/ To save you some time the answer is on page 4
The CTWD Committee was always self elected. People complained about an unelected minority from the start. The CTWD Committee took the decision to merge with Tigers Coop before April 2014. The CTWD Committee didn't think the evictions were any of their business and, as is clear from what you've said, thought it was a success. I said only a pendant would complain about a campaign on the grounds that it wasn't a Trust. Members of CTWD who agreed with the move and didn't want their money spent on a campaign obviously wouldn't be pendants. Members who opposed the evictions wouldn't complain about any spending for obvious reasons.
You can tell we've not got a game. Though I did nearly start a match thread when I came in pissed Last night.
Only one CTWD Director was in favour of the seat move, primarily because his lad was one of the Ulltras. Most of the CTWD Directors stood down when the name change campaign ended, only about a quarter of us continued on into the Trust.
Any merger relies on the corporation & agreement of all parties. Was it the CTWD committee’s decision alone to merge or did they really agree, at that time, to pursue the possibility of merging with The Tigers Coop to form an alternative Trust? I understand the Committee were a group of people who got organised & gave their time to, successfully, campaign against a single issue. They received support because of the issue. The Trust came to late to potentially help with the eviction issue. If the real issue was giving out info then this could have been done, quite simply, in many ways without CTWD’s involvement. Facebook, Twitter, Local Radio, Newspaper ads etc it just needed people to step up & get organised & give time. Maybe someone doing that rather than pursuing personal vendettas may have had an impact. We’ll never know now.
I have tried to avoid it, honest. It is interesting reading which bits some people try to ignore or reframe though. Hey ho, it's done and you can only play with the cards you've got. Sadly, that situation cost us a lot of long term fans, and played its part in later events. If it wasn't altogether avoidable, damage limitation could certainly have been better, and lessons that should have been learned, won't be.
The Tigers Coop were represented on the CTWD committee. There was agreement in principle on all sides to merge. My understanding was only one Supporters Trust would be recognised by Supporters Direct which is why the merger was necessary. I don't know why it took so long but suspect it was due to getting the consent of the members of both organisations and sorting out the legal niceties, such as the constitution etc. I thought DMD did do some of that. My understanding of his point was CTWD would have been more effective given its recent record. He'll be in a better position to confirm whether this is a fair summary of his position. As you say its water under the bridge but obviously the taste still remains.
That's a reasonable summation. Sadly, if some can't see how events directly or indirectly affected other events, they try to view it differently, perhaps falsely describing it as a personal vendetta because it's easier to handle. Ironically, they then try to focus the issue on to what could be seen as other personal vendettas of their own, rather than considering the wider picture. As I've said before, the focus on the groups is a red herring, although it's been said that some in those groups did have the ear of the club, and ideas of their own until there was a falling out.
I was correct then. CTWD couldn’t agree to merge with the Coop before April. They came to an agreement to pursue a Merger to form a new Trust. The merger was not a decision CTWD could make alone. Even the Coop board members involved with CTWD would have had to hold separate meetings to clarify their stance, before consulting members.
