|
Vintage Cobbler
|
Let me balance the comments of MCHammer with some of my own.
There have been well publicised scandals involving charities with well known names. The examples quoted by MCH happened to occur in the USA where litigation is a past time. Comparisons with the USA are dangerous. NTFC CT is registered in England, as is the Supporters Trust, and so subject to the laws of this country. NTFC CT is a company limited by guarantee, registered at Companies House under the Companies Act 2006. It is also registered with the Charity Commission and so subject to the Charities Act 2011. The Supporters Trust is not a charity but formerly an industrial & provident society, it is now governed by the Co-operative & Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and registered with the Financial Conduct Authority.
I think this matter needs to be seen in its proper context. Both NTFC CT & the Supporters Trust are well known to each other. Currently, the Supporters Trust is donating the profits from its monthly draw to NTFC CT. What was offered by the Supporters Trust and declined by NTFC CT publicly was the receipt of the profits to be earned by the Supporters Trust from the sale of face masks. The public refection was made within 2-3 hours of the Supporters Trust’s announcement. I have some experience of charities, how they are run and the decision making process and I would comment that NTFC CT’s decision was made with unusual haste. NTFC CT has a board of 9 charity trustees, so which of that number made the speedy decision and wrote the public rejection? Now I see NTFC CT from its follow up announcement on its website is closing ranks after receiving some criticism. I doubt that we will ever know what went on and if there was internal decision making compliance The decision of NTFC CT must have caused long-term damage in a very public way to its relationship with the Supporters Trust and even if there are those who consider the decision was right the manner in which it was made is highly questionable. So, was this rejection justified?
As I comment, it is not as though the two organisations are unknown to each other. MCH raises various concerns including adherence to British standards, questions if someone is profiting from the charitable venture, where the masks are made, is the material safe, will “they” (whoever they may be) run off with the money and so on. Let me answer based on what I know and let me also make clear this is not a project with which I have been involved.
• UK Government advice is that the wearing of “face coverings” is recommended in private places such as supermarkets and public transport. It comes down that the clear Government advice is that wearing something is better than nothing. “British standards” do not come into the advice. The wearing of a face mask does not stop the wearer becoming infected but if the wearer is carrying the virus it may prevent him passing the virus to another person by stopping the passage of air-born and invisible droplets from the wearer. To quote Trish Greenhalgh, Professor of Primary Care at Oxford University:
"The science on this is clear: Covid-19 is most commonly transmitted by droplets emitted when we cough, sneeze, shout, sing and even just breathe in close proximity to others.
Cloth face coverings are highly effective at blocking droplets coming out of the mouth and nose. They're not perfect, but if you can stop 90% or 95% of the droplets this will cause a very dramatic reduction in the number of people who catch the virus.”
• The only organisation that would profit would have been NTFC CT. Obviously, the manufacturer is a business and will be fully entitled to make a profit from the sale to the Supporters Trust. The legal relationship is manufacturer to Trust and Trust to customer. NTFC CT is involved only to the extent that the customer when placing an order would know the profit from the sale would go to another NTFC connected organisation and this may have encouraged more sales than would otherwise have been the case.
• The manufacturer is not a sweat in the Far East. It is an UK company and it is masking masks to the same specifications for Wycombe Wanderers’ Supporters Trust and, I am told, some Premier League clubs and other sporting companies.
• I think the comments above answer the question of someone running off with the money.
Whatever the truth may be as to how this situation happened it never have arisen because the losers are the those who benefit from NTFC CT’s activities. Like it or not we are all brand NTFC - club, charity and supporters.
Now some other charity will benefit and, ironically, that will most probably be local health charity.
|
