Fans Engagement Workstream, CIC Board Q&A

[al_quaker]

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request, so email the club, have an email discussion, and keep pushing the club until an acceptable answer to any concerns has been received.

The clear answer is highly unlikely to magically appear on the messageboard!

[A kick in the Jacobs]

If someone told you they knew of someone committing child abuse to your children would you just say "Well, they're making the accusation, let them deal with it"?

I wouldn't take their word for it and alert the police because "someone told me" especially if that person was particularly adament that they wouldn't tell the police.

I'd be extremely suspicious as to why not and would imagine it's because they either have no confidence in what they are saying, or because they don't want to be known by the police as having made the allegations.

So probably a very good analogy. Well done AKITJ.

Why refer to the Police?

My point is would you be taking an interest in what that person said? You're suggesting you wouldn't. Unbelievable.

loiq36789 - soft on nonceing; soft on corporate impropriety; soft in the head.

[mikkyx]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

[Spyman]

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request, so email the club, have an email discussion, and keep pushing the club until an acceptable answer to any concerns has been received.

The clear answer is highly unlikely to magically appear on the messageboard!

Yes but as you can see from the initial post in the thread, questions were posed via 'official channels' and some of them have been skirted around and not answered. There's no point offering official channels of communication if you're not going to answer the questions openly. It shouldn't be neccessary to enter in to an email discussion just to get a clear answer on a question that has supposedly been answered officially!

[al_quaker]

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request, so email the club, have an email discussion, and keep pushing the club until an acceptable answer to any concerns has been received.

The clear answer is highly unlikely to magically appear on the messageboard!

Yes but as you can see from the initial post in the thread, questions were posed via 'official channels' and some of them have been skirted around and not answered. There's no point offering official channels of communication if you're not going to answer the questions openly. It shouldn't be neccessary to enter in to an email discussion just to get a clear answer on a question that has supposedly been answered officially!

So then you could email the club back and keep pushing the club until an acceptable answer to any concerns has been received!

[mikkyx]

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request, so email the club, have an email discussion, and keep pushing the club until an acceptable answer to any concerns has been received.

The clear answer is highly unlikely to magically appear on the messageboard!

Yes but as you can see from the initial post in the thread, questions were posed via 'official channels' and some of them have been skirted around and not answered. There's no point offering official channels of communication if you're not going to answer the questions openly. It shouldn't be neccessary to enter in to an email discussion just to get a clear answer on a question that has supposedly been answered officially!

As al_quaker said, if you aren't happy a question has been answered properly (and by this I mean the answer wasn't relevant, NOT that you didn't like it) you ask it again until the answer matches up. Jeremy Paxman is a big fan of this style of questioning, I believe.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

Oh, and you're wrong. In my example, I had gone to the family to tell them.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

The net effect of all this is that generally Darlo fans are either:

a) naive

b) stupid

c) turn a blind-eye to mispropriety

d) all of the above.

[mikkyx]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

A far greatest interest, perhaps, but a far lesser understanding of the facts and laws that surround your allegation.

You're the one who's figured all of this out, and you have a far greater understanding of the legal implications etc. behind it. That much is obvious. I happily admit I wouldn't begin to understand any response I would get if I was to put these concerns to people on your behalf. I'm not even sure I'd phrase the question properly to begin with.

To modify your analogy, then - you believe someone is abusing someone else's kids, but as they're not your kids you aren't taking your concerns to anyone relevant and instead you sit discussing your concerns on a public forum, waiting for the family of the children in question to spot the thread and do something about it.

EDIT TO ADD: I was well aware that a portion of my season ticket renewal was going to the CIC. I have a copy of the season ticket leaflet (this being the one that offers the instalment plan) in front of me and I quote. "All ticket prices include Darlington Football Club 1883 CIC membership for the season". I believe there was similar wording on the non-finance form, too.

[al_quaker]

The net effect of all this is that generally Darlo fans are either:

a) naive

b) stupid

c) turn a blind-eye to mispropriety

d) all of the above.

Or perhaps:

e) so obdurate that even if they have certain concerns, they won't try and solve them?

[charlie]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

Oh, and you're wrong. In my example, I had gone to the family to tell them.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem as getting my season ticket renewed my membership

[mikkyx]

The net effect of all this is that generally Darlo fans are either:

a) naive

b) stupid

c) turn a blind-eye to mispropriety

d) all of the above.

Presumably, then, all Norwich fans are capable of working out there might be something funny going on behind the scenes, but then they sit moaning about it on a forum instead of going to the people who could answer their concerns promptly and properly.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

A far greatest interest, perhaps, but a far lesser understanding of the facts and laws that surround your allegation.

You're the one who's figured all of this out, and you have a far greater understanding of the legal implications etc. behind it. That much is obvious. I happily admit I wouldn't begin to understand any response I would get if I was to put these concerns to people on your behalf. I'm not even sure I'd phrase the question properly to begin with.

To modify your analogy, then - you believe someone is abusing someone else's kids, but as they're not your kids you aren't taking your concerns to anyone relevant and instead you sit discussing your concerns on a public forum, waiting for the family of the children in question to spot the thread and do something about it.

EDIT TO ADD: I was well aware that a portion of my season ticket renewal was going to the CIC. I have a copy of the season ticket leaflet (this being the one that offers the instalment plan) in front of me and I quote. "All ticket prices include Darlington Football Club 1883 CIC membership for the season". I believe there was similar wording on the non-finance form, too.

Still wrong. In my analogy, I was the person who was telling the family of my suspicions of A.N. Other doing the abuse.

Once again, that sentence does not say £20 of your money will be going to the CIC nor that they will then give back the money to the club to increase their shareholding despite not actually making a donation themselves. And do you know why it doesn't say that? Well, I suspect it's because of the shitstorm it would have created before they'd managed to hoodwink people of £20 and diluted the minority shareholders interest.

IT WAS NOT TRANSPARENT AND DELIBERATELY SO IMO.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

Oh, and you're wrong. In my example, I had gone to the family to tell them.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem as getting my season ticket renewed my membership

And the people who do have a problem?

[charlie]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

Oh, and you're wrong. In my example, I had gone to the family to tell them.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem as getting my season ticket renewed my membership

And the people who do have a problem?

Can raise their concerns through the official channels. I don't have a problem with you asking questions and wanting answers, it's your reluctance and resistance to ask the questions directly which I don't understand. Your hijacking threads left right and centre and it's getting us nowhere. You've raised your concerns on the unofficial forum, voiced your concerns but were going round in circles. You've been asked to stop by mikky yet you carry on. I really don't see how this is going to finish without asking the questions directly to the boards.

[Spyman]

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action.

Which is a perfectly reasonable request, so email the club, have an email discussion, and keep pushing the club until an acceptable answer to any concerns has been received.

The clear answer is highly unlikely to magically appear on the messageboard!

Yes but as you can see from the initial post in the thread, questions were posed via 'official channels' and some of them have been skirted around and not answered. There's no point offering official channels of communication if you're not going to answer the questions openly. It shouldn't be neccessary to enter in to an email discussion just to get a clear answer on a question that has supposedly been answered officially!

As al_quaker said, if you aren't happy a question has been answered properly (and by this I mean the answer wasn't relevant, NOT that you didn't like it) you ask it again until the answer matches up. Jeremy Paxman is a big fan of this style of questioning, I believe.

Oh I absolutely will be, don't worry. I don't like the answer to question 7 because it appears to be the answer to an entirely different question.

I shouldn't have to though, and although part of me just thought I'd be wasting the time of someone who is volunteering their time for the club, I then remembered that if they'd properly answered what was a very simple question first time round, then I wouldn't be having to follow it up - so in actual fact it is them wasting their own time. If they say they are going to issue answers to a set of questions, they should just bloody answer the questions!

[shawry]

Charlie, tbh asking the board didnt give me any resolution, and Im too busy myself to bother with constantly ask until they give me an answer to my questions, much as they are too busy to constantly trying to avoid answering my questions.

I would have had less issue if there was a tick box to join the CIC, and renew my membership that way if I chose, but this should have meant a £20 increase to my season ticket price (be that £155 raised to £175, or £175 raised to £195)

Essentially it looks like the club and the CIC are one entity, and from the answer I got from the club it looked like the Season Ticket 'promotion' was the decision of the CIC, as I was told to direct my questions to them.

[charlie]

Charlie, tbh asking the board didnt give me any resolution, and Im too busy myself to bother with constantly ask until they give me an answer to my questions, much as they are too busy to constantly trying to avoid answering my questions.

I would have had less issue if there was a tick box to join the CIC, and renew my membership that way if I chose, but this should have meant a £20 increase to my season ticket price (be that £155 raised to £175, or £175 raised to £195)

Essentially it looks like the club and the CIC are one entity, and from the answer I got from the club it looked like the Season Ticket 'promotion' was the decision of the CIC, as I was told to direct my questions to them.

I don't know why your question wasn't answered is my honest answer. All I can say is any dealings I've had with any of the 2 boards due to fund raising or Quaker Retail has been good. I believe they are in it for the right reasons and in all honesty with the concentrated effort on saving the club, getting the club up and running, give the CIC time to catch up. I'm not making excuses, answers should be given if like yourself you've gone through proper channels, but I believe with a little time all will become apparent.

[A kick in the Jacobs]

I'm guessing, AKITJ, that since you're willing to sit here discussing an alleged crime with all of us, without taking your concerns to the proper authorities, that you'd be no better.

To use your analogy (although I'd really rather not, it's pathetic), you believe you're aware of someone abusing someone's kids, yet you're sat on Twitter trying to get someone else to report it, instead of going to the police or the family yourself.

I'm not trying to get someone else to 'report' it. I'm trying to get someone else with a far greater interest in the accusation than myself to look into it, i.e. the fans who have had £20 hoodwinked from them and the minority shareholders who have had their shareholdings diluted by potentially nefarious means.

Oh, and you're wrong. In my example, I had gone to the family to tell them.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem as getting my season ticket renewed my membership

And the people who do have a problem?

Can raise their concerns through the official channels. I don't have a problem with you asking questions and wanting answers, it's your reluctance and resistance to ask the questions directly which I don't understand. Your hijacking threads left right and centre and it's getting us nowhere. You've raised your concerns on the unofficial forum, voiced your concerns but were going round in circles. You've been asked to stop by mikky yet you carry on. I really don't see how this is going to finish without asking the questions directly to the boards.

You see, that's the attitude I'm highlighting. You're more bothered about getting what you want rather than doing what's right. You're turning a blind eye.

I haven't hi-jacked any threads whatsoever. All the threads I've posted on have mentioned this issue. I'm not the person needlessly locking threads. Let them run their course.

You're always saying things that aren't happening. Are you addicted to hyperbole or just a chronic liar? I don't care for your answer either way.

[mikkyx]

Do you believe going round in circles on here instead of going directly to the people best qualified and best able to answer your allegations is "doing what's right"?

You can cease with the personal attacks while you're answering that, by the way.

[Spyman]

I don't know why your question wasn't answered is my honest answer. All I can say is any dealings I've had with any of the 2 boards due to fund raising or Quaker Retail has been good. I believe they are in it for the right reasons and in all honesty with the concentrated effort on saving the club, getting the club up and running, give the CIC time to catch up. I'm not making excuses, answers should be given if like yourself you've gone through proper channels, but I believe with a little time all will become apparent.

See, I don't get this either. There's nothing to suggest anyone is in this for personal gain, afterall, what is there to be gained from a homeless, penniless amateur football club?

So why the apparent reluctance to answer questions like 'how did you get selected to be on the CIC board', or 'are you sure that taking £20 off every season ticket is above board'?

Just be open, honest, if you've made a mistake with the season ticket money stand up and admit it - as many have said, it seems that none of the minority share holders are bothered, so a quick ballot to say 'are you bothered' would put this all to bed surely. It is also clear that the people in charge seem to have as good a skill set as any, so why not be up front about how they ended up taking on their roles? I can't see anyone holding it against them.

[charlie]

Can raise their concerns through the official channels. I don't have a problem with you asking questions and wanting answers, it's your reluctance and resistance to ask the questions directly which I don't understand. Your hijacking threads left right and centre and it's getting us nowhere. You've raised your concerns on the unofficial forum, voiced your concerns but were going round in circles. You've been asked to stop by mikky yet you carry on. I really don't see how this is going to finish without asking the questions directly to the boards.[/quote]
You see, that's the attitude I'm highlighting. You're more bothered about getting what you want rather than doing what's right. You're turning a blind eye.



More bothered about getting what I want? Excuse me? Chronic liar and turning a blind eye? What planet are you on? I take exception to all of what you've said! I've tried to be patient with you, I haven't locked any threads but do not get personal with me. I have not turned a blind eye to anything when I've had issues or concerns I've approached the board directly thank you very much which is what I and others have constantly advised you to do. As for more bothered about getting what I want, should I tell you what I want in all honesty!

I want the club to work, I believe the CIC is the way forward, I want future generations to have a Darlo to support, long after we've all gone and I want the fan owned model to work.

I believe people like my hubby who have supported Darlo for years have had enough of rich chairmen coming in and letting the club down time and time again.

I also believe the CIC has a lot going for it, but it also has needed time and still needs more for it to do what it stands for. I personally want to give the board time to ensure when they present it the people who have invested in it that everything is in order.

And for the record I think I'm doing what's right, I'm trying to help the club we all support in the only way I can

[Spyman]

I also believe the CIC has a lot going for it, but it also has needed time and still needs more for it to do what it stands for. I personally want to give the board time to ensure when they present it the people who have invested in it that everything is in order.

Another thing then, why do you think they are in such a hurry to raise their stake to 75%, to the extent where they've raised £13,000 in a questionable manner?

They could've taken their time and made sure everything was done openly, and properly, but they didn't. I'd happily give them time and trust if it ensures things are done properly.

[Maurice_Peddelty]

I think AKITJ's latest outburst deserves at least yellow!

[charlie]

I also believe the CIC has a lot going for it, but it also has needed time and still needs more for it to do what it stands for. I personally want to give the board time to ensure when they present it the people who have invested in it that everything is in order.

Another thing then, why do you think they are in such a hurry to raise their stake to 75%, to the extent where they've raised £13,000 in a questionable manner?

They could've taken their time and made sure everything was done openly, and properly, but they didn't. I'd happily give them time and trust if it ensures things are done properly.

I don't know why they appear to be in a hurry, and I don't think personally things have been done in a questionable manner just that it hasn't been explained yet

[Markodarlo]

I have no problem with the CIC, the individuals on it, or its aims and intentions. I'm a member, and I think it seems the best way for the club to progress.

But, AKITJ is making a valid point. This Q&A seems to me a lot of political speak with very few plain answers. AKITJ has raised a genuine concern, which makes perfect sense to me - how is it appropriate to take funds that have been paid in ernest to DFC1883, and reroute part of those funds to the CIC so that it can increase its stake in the club?

Again, I have no problem with the CIC increasing its stake in the club, but why does it get to call shotgun on these funds which are not optional if as a paying fan, you want to make a saving on ticket prices?

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action. If it is, great.

As an example, question 7:
7 - How have people been "selected" for the CIC positions thus far? On what basis?

Every limited company that is formed requires founding directors. The CIC fully came to life as a majority shareholder in March 2013 when shares were allotted at a time that Darlington 1883 had serious financial challenges. Following Dave Mills resignation, the CIC now has 3 directors – however each has specific skills that have been delivered in extremely difficult circumstances. Friday’s announcement reinforces the position that the founding directors have established sufficient foundations to welcome member elected directors and a position on the board of Darlington 1883 – this was always the intention, but could not be done before the foundations were put in place and the CIC had been heavily involved in supporting Mr Jesper in stabilising the position of Darlington 1883.

This in no way tells us the answer to the question, which I'd have thought was a fair and straightforward one.

I think the answer is straight forward but maybe I've picked up other snipers of info from various fans forums, communication and meetings.

Ian wilkinson came up with CIC model, therefore as the initial driver of the vehicle he is on board.
He then makes a decision that he needs some help with this, and on that song comes Dave mills offering his help, Ian still in the early stages and not 100% where this will go accepts the offer and the are now both on board setting the wheels in motion. ( looking good upto now, someone has had an idea and us acting on it as oppose to sitting on it ).

Whilst they are now making there vehicle public and offering people the opportunity to offer various services to help build the model, along comes Paul Colman, he produces a direction and set off building blocks, I.e work streams, to help drive the vehicle forward, Ian and Dave would be wrong to turn this help away surly?

And there you go, you have 3 founding directors starting to fuel the vehicle that is like it or not starting to make progress and gather momentum, yes there are going to be a few speed humps along the way but they are new to this. Last season they were just football fans creating a plan of survival, this season they are................. Still footballs fans continuing a plan of survival.

( Stepping down from my orange box now )

[Ingleby]

I have no problem with the CIC, the individuals on it, or its aims and intentions. I'm a member, and I think it seems the best way for the club to progress.

But, AKITJ is making a valid point. This Q&A seems to me a lot of political speak with very few plain answers. AKITJ has raised a genuine concern, which makes perfect sense to me - how is it appropriate to take funds that have been paid in ernest to DFC1883, and reroute part of those funds to the CIC so that it can increase its stake in the club?

Again, I have no problem with the CIC increasing its stake in the club, but why does it get to call shotgun on these funds which are not optional if as a paying fan, you want to make a saving on ticket prices?

All a few of us want, is a clear answer as to why that is an appropriate course of action, and whether it is a legal course of action. If it is, great.

As an example, question 7:
7 - How have people been "selected" for the CIC positions thus far? On what basis?

Every limited company that is formed requires founding directors. The CIC fully came to life as a majority shareholder in March 2013 when shares were allotted at a time that Darlington 1883 had serious financial challenges. Following Dave Mills resignation, the CIC now has 3 directors – however each has specific skills that have been delivered in extremely difficult circumstances. Friday’s announcement reinforces the position that the founding directors have established sufficient foundations to welcome member elected directors and a position on the board of Darlington 1883 – this was always the intention, but could not be done before the foundations were put in place and the CIC had been heavily involved in supporting Mr Jesper in stabilising the position of Darlington 1883.

This in no way tells us the answer to the question, which I'd have thought was a fair and straightforward one.

I think the answer is straight forward but maybe I've picked up other snipers of info from various fans forums, communication and meetings.

Ian wilkinson came up with CIC model, therefore as the initial driver of the vehicle he is on board.
He then makes a decision that he needs some help with this, and on that song comes Dave mills offering his help, Ian still in the early stages and not 100% where this will go accepts the offer and the are now both on board setting the wheels in motion. ( looking good upto now, someone has had an idea and us acting on it as oppose to sitting on it ).

Whilst they are now making there vehicle public and offering people the opportunity to offer various services to help build the model, along comes Paul Colman, he produces a direction and set off building blocks, I.e work streams, to help drive the vehicle forward, Ian and Dave would be wrong to turn this help away surly?

And there you go, you have 3 founding directors starting to fuel the vehicle that is like it or not starting to make progress and gather momentum, yes there are going to be a few speed humps along the way but they are new to this. Last season they were just football fans creating a plan of survival, this season they are................. Still footballs fans continuing a plan of survival.

( Stepping down from my orange box now )

Thanks. But you missed out one CIC director. How does Andrew fit in then?

[Markodarlo]

Sorry, He was obviously appointed from a skill set point of view, I'd imagine there would have been a lot of legal jargon to be dealt with, I believe that anyone coming forward offering a skill needed during the creation would have been snapped up with thanks.

[Spyman]

Thanks Marko - see an answer along those lines is what that particular question was surely crying out for. Nothing to hide, and it also gives us reassurances that these guys are Darlo fans who want the best for the club.

[Spyman]

I don't know why they appear to be in a hurry, and I don't think personally things have been done in a questionable manner just that it hasn't been explained yet

So you don't think it is questionable that the CIC are using funds received by the club, to buy shares in the club? As AKITJ said, why was this £20 per ticket given to the CIC, and not the Trust, supporters club, me?

I'm just struggling to fathom what the explanation is that you're so sure is forthcoming other than 'we didn't really think that through'. It doesn't mean they did anything intentionally wrong, but again, as has been said by several people several times before, nobody is expecting perfection and I think most would be more forgiving if people just held their hands up and admitted when mistakes were made (if they have been).

But then again, I've yet to see any of the CIC board deny that a mistake has been made here, all I've seen is people blindly trying to protect them and deny the possibility anything might have been done wrong - which I don't think is helping the CIC board (and this is not their fault).

Maybe it would be better if some people just let the CIC board explain when they've had their chance to look at things again, with people's concerns being taken in to account.