Whilst I really am truly grateful to all those people who have contacted me in support, I mean this in the nicest possible way when I say, stay out of it. I can fight my own battles.

Capital letters should direct you to the picturesque Berkshire town...top or top three largest in the country!
What do you make of their Chinese c**t of a chairman, Die Young?

what a c**t.

Not sure if I’m slightly dyslexic or something, but does anyone else keep seeing this as “reading”, as in I’m reading Cats highly informative pre match review. That is rather than “Reading” the picturesque Berkshire town and home of the fallen giants?

Low down, tinpot scum club with an American tw*t chairman who has no morals...hope Northampton destroy the c***s!

Thanks, informative as ever if slightly controversial. Is an audio version available for those who are visually impaired?

Dont feel they’ll be destroyed, but a long awaited victory will be a formality in the end. 1-2 Both of our goals in the first half, Wycombe to get a late consolation due to some of our lot running out of steam on account of “being on the beach”. Apologies I can’t be more detailed.

The box park idea would have been flexible and mutli-purpose, but as importantly, was not a permanent structure (and cheap to set-up). Part of the ideas were for self storage units, self-employed started units etc etc

It could have been designed to incorporate a fans village so with bars and food outlets etc etc

Nowadays these park box units can look stunning and modern.

Agree there are a far few eateries but there is still room for many more brands and especially variety of food outlets -

You think this is a bad idea, OK give me your views on KT's plans for the space and how much has that space earned the club in the last 9 years and then in the next 5

Commercial issues aside, someone built an entire house out of shipping containers on Grand Designs Australia. I have to say it was pretty impressive.

https://youtu.be/FhXEftJY4CU?si=CYS9oYnkEDod5fVW

😵‍💫

🤣 LMFAO

That’s me fcuked then.

  I suppose we just have to hope and pray they don’t go in “dry”.

Late last night i found myself looking at the number of members that had logged on to the HE for all of yesterday (yeah, I know). Total was 90.
There'll be plenty of guests who also read the boards but it kind of puts this kind of thing in perspective in terms of its sense of appropriation. Very few members of the fanbase will ever be interested in anything other than the bit on the green stuff.

Certainly puts into context the potential for any damage to a reputation.

I’m waiting for Coolcats review before I post my ever popular prediction.

Not too sure about point one Melly because I know problems were encountered. Carton Lid should be able to give us the latest.

Really, that’s a shame.

For the sake of balance can I just point out that the Trust have made a couple of really good decisions that they revealed in their latest news. The first involves the enabling fans from the Community Trust’s disability programme to travel with Cobblers Travel/Earls Barton Cobblers to the upcoming fixture against Wycombe Wanderers. They have also purchased a wet weather gazebo for Sixfields Sounds DJ Mat Amos, who plays music outside Carr’s Bar on matchdays.

Are they trying to silence people who ask difficult questions?

I believe the term that can be used in those circumstances is vexatious litigation, things you learn.

can you list the accusations exactly please so I can see if they are defamatory

Thanks

Incidentally on this subject, in the event anyone is interested please see below the response I gave to the board in response to their recent letter.

Dear Board Members,
 
I am writing in response to your email of Tuesday 12th March (ASET) attached below.
 
Thank you for providing your interpretation of the legal position relating to my comments posted on The Hotel End supporters forum, in my capacity as a life member of the NTFC Supporters Trust.
 
As I am sure you will accept, it was necessary to obtain my own legal interpretation regarding the comments made and wish to advise that they significantly contradict those stated in your email below. Given the historical and recent evidence that is at my disposal, and in addition information available in the public domain, it has been indicated that my communications could reasonably be interpreted as honest opinion. Given the legal expertise at your disposal, I am sure you are aware there are also a number of further defences, that could be actively pursued should this matter progress.
 
As a result, I regret to inform you that I will neither apologise or withdraw my comments, which have been interpreted as both reasonable and defendable considering the relevant evidence in existence. Additionally, I also believe it to be reasonable that I continue to communicate challenging questions and opinions in an attempt to make the Board of the Trust open, transparent, and accountable to the membership, which again in my opinion the Board are failing to honour to an appropriate extent.
 
Further to this it could be argued that using the forum as a conduit of communication for this process is also reasonable, given the boards failure to adequately answer or report to the membership commercial questions that were previously submitted directly to the board. If you recall, these were described as “valid”  by yourselves and were pertaining to the potential success or failure of the proposals that were part of the ACV application voted on by the membership. This is in addition to the possibility of any consequences the club, council and/or taxpayer may have experienced following the Trust Boards activities. Whilst these consequences may or may not exist, I believe that it is reasonable that the membership and supporters are given an opportunity to evaluate these concerns and the way they are managed, and to expect that any issues are fully addressed and communicated to the membership. As such, it may be argued that it is a continuing failure on the part of the Board not to do so.
 
Can I finally reiterate how disappointed I am both personally and in my capacity as a life member that the Board have taken the decision to embark on this process. I feel this disappointment is particularly justified given the repeated failure of the Board to honour its obligations in applying its clearly stated social media policy with regards to communications made on social media by members of the Board, who may I remind you are also fellow trust members and represent myself and my fellow members. I feel this is unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of consistency and fairness on the part of the Board, particularly when the various communications submitted by the relevant Board members are compared to that of my own.
 
Given the above, I now consider this matter closed pending any further legal applications you may wish to make.
 
Regards,
 

I like the idea of a whimsical or a nonchent owner. Sounds like the type of person we could go on a journey with. There'll always be an NTFC of some description in the aftermath.
Negligent less so. Conjours up images of underachievement, decay, abuse and misuse.
Traceys gone broad church with that phrase. Look after your family or we'll do you?

It is a bit heavy going, but it is going to present some challenges for the aspirations of some. Does it make it harder for clubs to make significant progress up the pyramid, or easier because it is harder for clubs to spend beyond their means and levelling the playing field.

I wonder what constitutes a careless owner?

as in whimsical and nonchalant or negligent?

Hi Melly

At this stage I don't have an answer but if we don't start the discussions we won't know what is or isn't possible

Although from my point of view, I would not want to hand over any money to give free rein to any owners (past, present or future)

Can the council as freeholders of the stadium, make improvements without the permission from the leaseholders? 

Could they add another tier to the North stand for example if they wanted?  I don't know but landlords make improvements to their property all the time

To be fair mate, with regards to the box park it’s not a start of the discussions. I put these questions to the Board whilst you were actively pursuing the proposal with Goodwill Solutions and long before you withdrew. It was also confirmed they would be responded to. I’m genuinely interested if you were able to come up with any strategies to mitigate the risks? If you can’t you can’t, or if it’s the case that it is dependent on the relationship with the owners then so be it. However if you are going to keep promoting it as a valid option then I think it’s reasonable that you confirm whether or not that any strategies exist, and if so what they are. As I said it’s absolutely crucial that these are addressed for any infrastructure or revenue generating exercise. Bear in mind that even if you had an excellent working relationship with the owners then you might not necessarily with the next ones so this doesn’t go away. Personally much like the North Stand initiative, I think these ideas are only really workable if it is a fan owned club.

Nobody was driven away, they came (except Bhyll) with a certain agenda, and then when KT pulled the plug, off they went.  Please point out what they tried to achieve, I mean you could ask Rob Duncan, he was very busy taking notes at every meeting, including the AGM for someone some reason.

LOL so expensive coffee in a freezing box park !!!   please remind me what benefit has the running track land given to supporters or club in the last 10 years ?

With regards to the option of the box park can I take the opportunity to repeat the questions raised previously so that I may consider the options more fully. The questions remain important because they could apply to any proposed fan led or funded projects.

What mechanisms are to be put in place to protect investment in any infrastructure of the club on behalf of the membership. The club may be sold or taken over at some point, so it would be prudent to ask the question if measures are to be taken to ensure that any investments would be legally separated and excluded from any sale or transfer of ownership? What control or influence if any would the membership have over any additional revenue generated by these improvements. An obvious risk is that any additional revenue could be used as a share dividend for any owners and shareholders, which one would assume is not the ultimate aim of any investment on the part of the membership? What are the intended conditions that would be associated with any improvements or developments to protect any investments and ensure that any revenue generated is channelled appropriately. Some areas of Sixfields earmarked for improvement may already generate revenue. How is this to be identified and excluded from any calculation regarding additional revenue generated as part of any funding? Alternatively is the intention that any owners are given free reign to use any additional revenue generated at their discretion?

I would prefer a survey where there is no multiple choice, in essence just the “other” box which incidentally is missing from a couple of questions. That way rather than limiting the result you extract as much as possible from the respondents. I think it would also benefit from an area to add any additional subjects for focus. As others have alluded to, subjective statements such as “hemmed in” are unhelpful and potentially influence the response. Without being flippant the issue with some of this is that given the choice you are obviously going to develop everything to the maximum. Thats not the challenge though.
Given the position the Trust is in regarding its relationship with the club I personally don’t think this is the most productive use of its time. I think it should focus on some wider pending issues such as the government white paper on football reform and what impact and challenges that leads to.

Genuine question, what does anyone know about the white paper, should this progress it could have huge ramifications for the future of the club and any ambitions. What are the concerns or potential challenges you see us facing in light of the proposals and what are your thoughts generally?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9255/

Players & Management - A
Ownership - A++++
Facilities - N/A
Match Day Experience - N/A
Community - N/A
Do I feel part of the club? - A

I’d have given the owners 5 plus but I thought this might strain credibility?

Something I was thinking about while on the school run earlier, what grades would I give the Cobblers in the following categories?

Players & Management - B-
Ownership - C+
Facilities - D
Match Day Experience - B-
Community - A
Do I feel part of the club? - A

Be interested to know what others think, without it becoming all about the redevelopment.

Personally, I felt players and management are good but I couldn’t justify a top grading based on a few issues.

Ownership I feel are a safe pair of hands but there are some obvious issues ongoing that have been discussed to death.

Facilities - obvious.

Matchday - taking into account the whole experience, be that for kids or hospitality - I think they do a very good job with what they have.

Community - excellent

Feeling part of the club - I do, partly why I love supporting a “smaller team”.

What did your parents pick on the journey?