It's not documented as it was said to myself and another former Trust board member when we met him before he bought the club. We weren't happy about the situation but he said he was going to finish the stand so we did what we thought was best for NTFC. He said they never held "formal" board meetings just zoom calls.

I think the zoom thing is or was probably right. Genuine question, there’s always something that has intrigued me about the stepping aside thing in your previous posts. In the BBC interview KT stated they had 4 million to invest and whilst he didn’t really commit, he indicated it was a 4 or 5 year plan. He also indicated he wanted to finish the stand. Now given it’s fairly common knowledge that a L2 club loses a million a year, more in L1, and given the stand would cost a few million, you don’t need a calculator to work out that budget doesn’t really work. So on that basis I’m wondering why those other interested parties stepped aside so readily. It’s genuinely not a criticism, but something’s not right, especially that budget and timeframe, as the owners have found out.

Interesting conversations around the Trust in the last couple of pages, especially around breaching the non disclosure agreement. Personally I would argue that the Trust shouldn’t be entering into negotiations regarding something that has one, the model doesn’t allow it. It might not be ideal but you can’t be all things to all people. In any event how many times has this occurred in the Trusts entire history, once? And they shouldn’t really have gone down that route anyway IMO.

With regards to putting decisions to the vote, I’ve stated this before. You can’t put everything to the vote because some if not most decisions are too trivial, so you only do it with the really important ones. The problem is, who gets to decide what the really important ones are? The answer is to let the members decide. After each meeting you publish any decisions that have been taken as a part of a commitment to transparency. There is then a set period before they become ratified, say a couple of weeks. During this time if a predetermined number of members object to the decision through an objection process on the Trust website, say 20, then this would trigger a vote. Realistically how many votes would be triggered in an average year? It also wouldn’t matter how partisan or lob sided the Board was with regards to opinion. The Board of the Trust would then be completely accountable and all of this criticism and in fighting goes away, all of it.

I think there is a place for the Trust more than ever. With the pending legislation the Trust give the supporters a collective voice. If we had 3 or 4000 active members the owners might not listen, but the politicians might. It’s all about picking your battles and  deciding who with, but it has to be with the collective endorsement of the members, either directly or by default.

I agree, we need a Trust more than ever, as a democratic body and where possible you should always ask the members, but sometimes that’s just not possible and someone has to make a decision, don’t forget a Camel is a Horse by designed by committee.

True, but I know you would agree the would always be an appropriate open conduit for communication without suppression, particularly that of a covert nature. I happen to believe if you choose to put on the hat you always wear it, the responsibility and accountability goes with the position. The last bit is solely my opinion.

This is an internet forum for debate, I was under the assumption that everyone knew that people's posts were their own opinion? How on earth does that make me arrogant?

You seem to want an argument. I don't, so I'm happy to leave it there.

It’s not an argument, you just didn’t give an opinion you gave a lecture. No problem with that, but don’t pretend it was something it wasn’t.

Of course you're entitled to moan. I'm pointing out that we've clearly reached the point, and we reached it long ago, where continuing to moan ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING unless there's a change of personnel.

It's not a binary argument. I support your right to criticise, but can also point out that you choosing to do that but nothing else beyond it isn't going to result in the change you want any time soon.

“Isn’t going to change anything, in my opinion”, you missed a bit. It seems arrogance isn’t the sole attribute of myself and Tel. In any event perhaps things have changed more than you imagine, believe it or not, not everyone discloses everything they know on here.

I know. Have I ever indicated this isn't the case?

Well let’s just say the following isn’t a ringing endorsement or a seal of approval.
“You all waste countless hours on here moaning - fill in a paper form, stand for the board and change it. It will take up less of your f***ing time”.

Maybe that was because KT said that if the Trust wanted a seat on the board then, in his words, "It was a deal breaker"


While I'm posting, so Dale (Melbourne) are you saying that Tom Cliffe is just a puppet with no say or influence ??

If you recall Rog I was one of those who stuck up for the Trust board member who sat on the board of the club during the Cardoza fiasco. The poor sod would have been shown nothing and told nothing it would have all been a bolt from the blue. Which illustrates my point.

I can't apologise for being blunt about the situation or spelling out the reality of a course of inaction.

At the end of the day, in a democratic process, doesn't it all end up with someone having to stand for election?  

It does, but those who choose not to stand are not eliminated from communicating their views or protesting if that is their decision.

Maybe that was because KT said that if the Trust wanted a seat on the board then, in his words, "It was a deal breaker"


While I'm posting, so Dale (Melbourne) are you saying that Tom Cliffe is just a puppet with no say or influence ??

Not at all, I’m saying you won’t be privy to anything that people don’t want you to hear, whether you are in the board room or not.

Totally agree Peter, none of our previous owners have ever really moved the club forward so I was suggesting perhaps looking for another way, thats all

We all expect a change of owners soon, just really don't want to have more of the same

As I said, us and the council are the constant and was asking supporters for their views on a long term plan

Shame some (not you), as usual, prefer just to attack myself and Trust, rather than engage with their ideas and views

What you mean like the email that didn’t get answered. Sorry, forgot, I live in the wrong country to have an opinion. You need to take a long hard look in the mirror before you play the victim.

I’m amazed people put so much store in the Trust having a place on the Board of the club. I don’t know what people imagine goes on in there but take it from me, a Board meeting is a glorified press conference for people in the business to go on the record with their reports and recommendations. No one is going to say anything that they don’t want heard as a matter of record, and you only get told what people are prepared to allow you to hear. No controversial discussions or real decision making takes place in the Board room, it’s the place where they get rubber stamped. Don't get hung up on getting back in there, its fairly irrelevant in the scheme of things.

No. My point isn't stop moaning and get a seat on the board. My point is, that if you've moaned for ages and you don't feel they have responded adequately, and they are not showing any signs of resigning, then continuing to moan isn't going to change anything.

You've all been moaning for ages, they're not going to resign, so if you want change you're going to have to do something about it.

It's LITERALLY the only point I'm making. I'm not saying at all that anyone can't criticise the Trust, I'm amazed so many of you have interpreted it in that way, and I can only come to the conclusion that my post is being judged on the fact that I used to be a board member rather than the points I'm actually making.

Perhaps if you are unhappy with the response it’s because you didn’t express your views in the most productive manner. Pressure groups and lobbyists seem very common in the democratic process, some have been spectacularly successful even if it has taken a number of years for their activities to bear fruit. I think you underestimate the effectiveness of this approach, it may yet turn out to be the most likely way to instigate change. Still, with you working on the inside and others working on the outside we can perhaps return the Trust to the organisation it once was. Good luck with it.

A process made easier by the recent decision to reduce the maximum number of sitting board members.

Jesus, make that 50 years for them all to have influence. Seems fair.

And with respect to you Fez, your reasoned view is that if you want a voice and to change Trust policy stop “moaning” and get a seat on the board. I think that was your point. There are what 400 members, and according to you if the only effective way they can instigate change is to take their seat then it would take 40 years for all of them to have influence. Whilst I respect your opinion, if it’s all the same to you needless to say I disagree, so I’ll keep doing what I’m doing. But thanks for the advice.

[We commit to supporting the aims and objectives of NTFC where, in the opinion of the board, these are not in direct conflict with the needs and best interests of supporters.]

So in a nutshell, we have a lot of people moaning about an organisation that they think could do something positive, but chooses not to.

All the while missing the simple fact that they could choose to do something positive about that outcome, but choose not to.

The solution to all this is so laughably easy, and I get mocked every time I make this argument, but the fact remains...

Ten people standing for the board in February could COMPLETELY change the direction and outlook of said organisation to become something more positive, but you collectively choose not to do that.

TEN people. There's about 20 of you on here who do virtually nothing else but moan about the Trust. But you choose to do nothing about it.

Hundreds of people signed a petition last year, but only three bothered to stand for the board. You all collectively chose to not do anything about it, and here we are 12 months later in exactly the same position. If this isn't the Trust you want, it's certainly the one you now deserve.

You all waste countless hours on here moaning - fill in a paper form, stand for the board and change it. It will take up less of your f***ing time.

What from here with an 11 hour time difference. Anyway as Derek has already pointed out my geographical location renders me unsuitable as a supporter so presumably Im not welcome on his board either?

What about other members who for a variety of personal reasons are not able to do this, what's the answer to them then, tough? Alternatively if you apply to become a member of the board why not act in the manner set out in the mission statement instead of rail roading the trust down a path to satisfy your own vendetta. The way the Trustology board members round on new board members like a pack of dogs if one of their number is threatened has already been put up on here. Who the fúck would want to involve themselves in that, laughably easy, you must have had a bang on the head.

This is the same old get out of jail free card that's continually played anytime one of the number is scrutinised, a load of abuse and a 'get yourself on the board and change it' cop out. Thanks for the invite but as a life member if I see the board acting in a manner that I believe is inappropriate I'll keep holding them to account for it as is my right. Straight out of the NTFC Trust Mission Statement We commit to supporting the aims and objectives of NTFC where, in the opinion of the board, these are not in direct conflict with the needs and best interests of supporters. Apparently this to be achieved by the supporters keeping their fùcking mouths shut and keeping their needs and interests to themselves unless they are prepared to sit on the board.
Well you lot carry on nailing the lid shut on the trust coffin, at least Kelvin Thomas and David Bower will be delighted, so not everyone loses. However, if the board were to honour their obligations  then perhaps less of our fùcking time would be taken up. Unbelievable.

Who said the box park would be of little use, hope you’re not including me in that assumption. To be clear I’ve never commented how successful it may or may not be, it might be the most successful business in the history of retail commerce. Just not much use if you have no way of delivering the finance generated into the club. This is by protecting it, ensuring it is being channeled appropriately without merely substituting revenue that was previously budgeted by the owners, or demonstrating what revenue is new rather than appropriated from the existing operations. In the event it is used to improve the ground how is that then protected from any new owners or ensured it doesn’t become part of the saleable asset in any negotiations over the sale of the club?
All of this and more I offered up right at the get go in writing to the board. This wasn’t just an exercise in having a pop on here, but a genuine attempt to assist in highlighting the issues to be addressed, but it was never answered. Frankly this is because they didn’t have the first clue, so as a project IMO it was absolutely worthless and would probably been viewed as a competitor by the current owners and any new ones probably. So the board were aware of the issues, but implemented the action anyway, whilst claiming it to be a viable proposal, criticising the owners and anyone who took the time and trouble to point out some of the challenges.
As I said initially I wrote to the board and they acknowledged the issues, and left it for months. Then when I raise it as an issue on here in light of the revelations regarding the Cilldara partnership and the conclusions of the JR, the comedy board member goes on the usual full scale character assignation, and acts all put out when I fight back. Now he wants the members to buy into the latest recommendations and directives about how to take the club forward? Like I said, he’s taking the píss, but it has nothing to do with how successful the box park may or may not have been in of itself.

Having read the majority of this tread, I have come to the conclusion we all want the same thing, a bigger 12k capacity stadium that will enable us to generate revenue that will allow us to grow and become a L1 club at the very minimum with occasional forays into the Championship.
The problem is how we as fans can help to get us there, for me a council owned stadium is not the answer even on a long lease.
We need to acquire the stadium for the club, as Swindon have, so that improvements are the club’s asset.
Trying to bash the current owners is pointless and is counterproductive at best, the Trust need to be making a plan for when KT and DB decide to sell, maybe someone to head it up that is a little bit less confrontational.

So, given your conclusions what are your thoughts on us spending this windfall on the East Stand? I have long argued it was a waste of money, what would you suggest is the most effective plan given this deal is going through in light of your comments.

Having read the majority of this tread, I have come to the conclusion we all want the same thing, a bigger 12k capacity stadium that will enable us to generate revenue that will allow us to grow and become a L1 club at the very minimum with occasional forays into the Championship.
The problem is how we as fans can help to get us there, for me a council owned stadium is not the answer even on a long lease.
We need to acquire the stadium for the club, as Swindon have, so that improvements are the club’s asset.
Trying to bash the current owners is pointless and is counterproductive at best, the Trust need to be making a plan for when KT and DB decide to sell, maybe someone to head it up that is a little bit less confrontational.

Probably the best post you have ever written.

Let’s not beat around the bush, unless the Trust give Derek and “the advisor” the bullet entirely too many members and supporters will never back a Trust initiative again. If you don’t believe me ask a few members their thoughts, everything you need to know is right there. The Board either stand by their colleagues and remain dead and buried, or completely reinvent themselves and try and rebuild their reputation and credibility. Every time I talk to any members regarding the Trust the number one topic is  the conduct of certain individuals on social media and their suitability for the role they have engineered for themselves. I understand certain people may not like it but don’t shoot the messenger, that’s just the way it is.

What is your problem Dale, is all that sun finally having an affect on you?

Tell me when was the last time you visited sixfields? how many times in the last 8 years have you been to a game?

Why do you care about what happens - you live 10000 miles away and have done for well over a decade.

Yes I know I will get the usual oh it doesn't matter where you live etc etc, but it does when you get more and more abusive to people who want a better club and have to drive past s*** sixfields on a daily basis.

Again it was not a firm agreement was it cos we cancelled it so please stop acting like it was a done deal.

In relation to that bit of ACV land, how much income has been produced from it in since KT arrived?  So not sure why you are so anti it being used to generate income with a cheap to set-up and run operation and even cheaper to dismantle to use the land for something else in the future.

Here we go again, same old misdirection. My problem is Derek that I have spent £500 with the club this season, so as my money is as good as anyone else’s my opinion on what I am getting for it is also as valid. In addition I am a life member of the Trust and have asked direct questions of the Board and when they went unanswered of you personally as my representative, especially since you decided to stick the boot in yet again. Time and again you have raised my geographical location as a reason to discount my questions and also cast doubt on whether I should ask them at all.
You have implemented a plan which I have reasonable grounds to suspect was a strategy to drive the owners out of the club. This was without any clear idea on how to support the club should this happen. You have added delays and costs for the Club which has undoubtedly affected the performance of the club at every level including recruitment, playing budget and all points in between. What you need to do is justify your actions regarding the ACV application by demonstrating you had a workable plan to deliver what you claimed it could. Until such time that you do, all you do is reinforce the suspicion that it was part of some reckless scheme to destabilise the club. Further to this you of all people question my right to give an opinion on the club I have spent a fortune following for 50 years. What in gods name was Andy Roberts and the other more moderates on the board thinking in allowing you anywhere near the Trust Board. The way you communicate, attempting to suppress members opinions, your illogical rants and demands regarding expenditure, you are a walking PR disaster and probably one of the biggest assets the owners have. You are an insult to the legacy of what should be a proud organisation that has been reduced to a meaningless shell of what it was. This is as a direct consequence of your persona and that of a couple of others who have hijacked the Trust board to satisfying their own personal vendettas, or perhaps other more sinister motives. Just resign will you and do the membership a long overdue favour, that way you might regain a smidgen of self respect.