The Hotel End
May 29, 2020, 14:09:43 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Stay Safe (& Alert !)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Stay Safe (& Alert !)  (Read 1921 times)
guest48
Guest
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2020, 18:14:56 pm »

The key word being APPROVED.  There are multiple reasons this would happen.  The underlying reasons are clear in that any charity is heavily reliant on it's reputation and the goodwill of those that support it.  Without either of these you would cease to exist.
The problem is when an unapproved product is launched especially at a sensitive time if that product is faulty, of poor quality, suffers delays in delivery, isn't fit for purpose and I could go on with more....then that ultimately damages the reputation of the cause it was designed to support, the charity, not the middle man who meant well.  
I have no idea if these masks are any good and have no doubt the idea came from a kind gesture.  However you simply have to seek approval first which is what should have been done because the fact is when you are making grand public gestures of support you are directly linking the charity you are supporting.   
The reputation of the Community Trust would never have been in danger, they are nothing to do with anything apart from they would be getting the profit. The masks were never claimed to be of medical standard, if there were delays or any other complaints ,they would and still will, go to the Supporters Trust , who have sourced and are selling the masks. There was absolutely no danger of the Community Trust reputation being damaged by receiving this money, their reputation is more likely have been damaged by being seen as "Puppets" of NTFC, turning down money because "someone" decided that not getting the money was a better option than the Supporters Trust getting a thank you 
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2020, 19:14:50 pm »

The reputation of the Community Trust would never have been in danger, they are nothing to do with anything apart from they would be getting the profit. The masks were never claimed to be of medical standard, if there were delays or any other complaints ,they would and still will, go to the Supporters Trust , who have sourced and are selling the masks. There was absolutely no danger of the Community Trust reputation being damaged by receiving this money, their reputation is more likely have been damaged by being seen as "Puppets" of NTFC, turning down money because "someone" decided that not getting the money was a better option than the Supporters Trust getting a thank you 

I did this for a living for two and a half years and this exact conversation on a daily basis.  It's not for the donor (the trust) to decide it's the charity that has to take these decisions.  If you know for a fact it's a personal decision then tell us exactly what happened.  If it's a personal thing then why did they accept the trusts other donations/sponsorship?  I'm simply telling you for a fact I could list multiple reasons why I wouldn't as a charity accept your donation from profits from these masks.....without background checking and approval prior to launch.  I have no knowledge about these mask than what I've read on the trusts site and am by no means saying they aren't ok.  I'm simply saying a conversation and agreement should have been sought beforehand.  You are completely incorrect in saying that they have nothing to do with it because they ultimately are the beneficiaries and will be linked publicly to it.  That's a fact.  Think about it this way.  When people talk about theses masks what do you think they call them.  Those claret and white masks, sold by the supporters trust where the profits go to the NTFC Community Trust...or those Cobblers masks?  This is what I mean by linking publicly.

To reiterate I'm not saying this is going to happen these masks might be brilliant and you may raise a fortune.  I'm simply saying it's fact of life for a charity that they have to make decisions like these on a daily basis and listen to complaints like the one you are making.

By the way I think the trust is absolutely doing the right thing by supporting NTFC Community Trust.  I said years ago on this very forum  that this is the right way to both publicly support the club for the benefit of supporters and also raise the profile and reputation of the Supporters Trust.  However individuals either close supporters or board members that then follow this up with petty public whining of receiving no praise or thanks from the club simply damage credibility of the donation in the first place.  Nobody likes people that seek a pat on the back for charitable work even if they deserve one.

My advice find some else that will accept your money on this occasion but approach them first before you make a public statement.  Personally I would support a local charity non Corona or NHS related as all other charities are struggling big time at the moment.
Report Spam   Logged
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3236


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2020, 19:38:19 pm »

Back of the Net, I think it is time you disclosed your connection with the club and/or the Community Trust. Employee or whatever I think it fair to ask and know. Time and again you come on here and make statements supportive of the club and its owners or anything connected with them. Today is no different albeit on behalf of what should be an entirely independent Community Trust and here you are trying to take apart the very sensible and accurate comments of Barton.  Sone on here did not come down with the last shower. 

Oh do one, Vintage. Not everyone who agrees with the club's decisions are in their back pocket. I've spent the last 20 odd years working in IT within the retail sector so have no link to the club, I've never met, spoken to, exchanged emails with or even engaged on social media with KT, DB or JW.

I actually posted on this topic to be supportive of the Trust; while I fully understand why the community trust don't want to have their name associated with these masks (largely due to the reasons so eloquently pointed out by MCHammer), I think the supporters trust have acted with the best intentions and the way the community trust have responded is quite rude.

As ever though, when someone says anything even vaguely in support of the club hierarchy it prompts a hissy fit...
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
guest48
Guest
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2020, 20:11:09 pm »

I appreciate what you  say, but to say that people associate who ever gets the money with any problems is not really true is it?  By that, say if Colonel Tom had have fell over whilst walking in his garden, would people have blamed the NHS ? no of course not, its the people who provide the service/ do the deed, rightfully get the blame
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2020, 22:48:34 pm »

I appreciate what you  say, but to say that people associate who ever gets the money with any problems is not really true is it?  By that, say if Colonel Tom had have fell over whilst walking in his garden, would people have blamed the NHS ? no of course not, its the people who provide the service/ do the deed, rightfully get the blame

I could talk about this all day and give you a million examples of where small, medium or catastrophic damage has been done to charities by the acts of third parties.  On big levels Lance Armstrong/Livestrong Cancer charity??  A smaller child protection charity that collapsed because it's clothing collection bins kept getting stolen or broken in to.  Was reported about the thefts in the press in what the charity hoped would stop them from happening and donations immediately dropped by 75% overnight as people didn't trust it would make it to the charity.  The cancer charity in America where a donor created wristbands that unknowingly turned out to be made from toxic material that caused skin damage when worn.

All charities are governed by laws regarding accepting donations.  They also have their own internal charter governing codes of conduct or rules specific to them.  I.E. on a basic and very obvious level no cancer charity would accept donations or activities that are in any way linked directly or indirectly to the tobacco industry.  In fact thinking about this as I type aren't the supporters trust a charity?  I might be wrong but wouldn't you have a charter for the same reason and surely only accept donations under certain conditions?

Anyway all a bit off topic but just trying to demonstrate why what you said quoted above is simply not right.

Back to the face masks.  If I worked for the NTFC community trust  I'd have distanced myself publicly exactly like they have done and then privately offered some thanks but no thanks to you(ntfc supporters trust) privately.  There are many reasons why.  Without any background knowledge of this product and it's origin how can I be sure they are safe, well made and adhere to British standards.  The fact you sell child versions means even more stringent rules.  How do I know someone is not profiting from this charitable venture?  Where are they made and are they made ethically?  Is the material used safe?  Is the supplier trust worthy?  Will they not just run of with the money?  Will we be seen to be profiting from a global pandemic?  I'm sure you can tick most if not all of these boxes but you didn't give me a chance to cause you didn't ask.

I could go on with many more but these are all the sort of questions I would need to ask before approving.  If you didn't even ask me beforehand I'd have probably done exactly what they did.  To you as a layman you are thinking "FFS I was only trying to help by selling a few bits of cloth".

Or maybe they just don't like the supporters trust and don't want to deal with you.  Could hardly blame them and pretty funny that any of you would be shocked about that.  Are these donations purely to help in tough times, holding out an olive branch?  I hope so as some of the complaints of a lack of thanks seem pretty petty and take away from the good gesture.  Of course some people are trying to make a public point.  Which is a shame at a time like this.  Thought maybe times like these may have opened up a bigger picture for everyone no matter what happened in the past.
Report Spam   Logged
Wanderingteyn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2020, 23:46:48 pm »

Weren't the community trust asked first?
Report Spam   Logged
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2020, 13:07:37 pm »

Weren't the community trust asked first?

There's is definitely a bit of "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" around this.

For me the concerning thing is this incessant opportunistic attitude towards swiping at the club. It's pathetic and boring. The levels of paranoia shown by some individuals are quite frankly embarrassing. Beyond a few desperate characters, there is absolutely no appetite for it.
Report Spam   Logged
everbrite
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14332


Akenfenwa best of the bunch since Steve Howard


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2020, 14:10:54 pm »

Agree with this, but why has this post been moved ? It's all about the NTFC Community Trust which is , surely, Cobblers related ?

It's not really about Cobblers it is at best indirectly connected. As Terry has suggested its one of those threads which gives opportunistic characters to pursue their grievances against NTFC. Pretty glad it has been relegated to General Chat.
Report Spam   Logged

2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
Vintage Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2492


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2020, 17:31:55 pm »

There's is definitely a bit of "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" around this.

For me the concerning thing is this incessant opportunistic attitude towards swiping at the club. It's pathetic and boring. The levels of paranoia shown by some individuals are quite frankly embarrassing. Beyond a few desperate characters, there is absolutely no appetite for it.


Looks like that call from Mission Control was answered. 

Report Spam   Logged
Tabasco Kid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2020, 18:07:17 pm »

I could talk about this all day and give you a million examples of where small, medium or catastrophic damage has been done to charities by the acts of third parties.  On big levels Lance Armstrong/Livestrong Cancer charity??  A smaller child protection charity that collapsed because it's clothing collection bins kept getting stolen or broken in to.  Was reported about the thefts in the press in what the charity hoped would stop them from happening and donations immediately dropped by 75% overnight as people didn't trust it would make it to the charity.  The cancer charity in America where a donor created wristbands that unknowingly turned out to be made from toxic material that caused skin damage when worn.

All charities are governed by laws regarding accepting donations.  They also have their own internal charter governing codes of conduct or rules specific to them.  I.E. on a basic and very obvious level no cancer charity would accept donations or activities that are in any way linked directly or indirectly to the tobacco industry.  In fact thinking about this as I type aren't the supporters trust a charity?  I might be wrong but wouldn't you have a charter for the same reason and surely only accept donations under certain conditions?

Anyway all a bit off topic but just trying to demonstrate why what you said quoted above is simply not right.

Back to the face masks.  If I worked for the NTFC community trust  I'd have distanced myself publicly exactly like they have done and then privately offered some thanks but no thanks to you(ntfc supporters trust) privately.  There are many reasons why.  Without any background knowledge of this product and it's origin how can I be sure they are safe, well made and adhere to British standards.  The fact you sell child versions means even more stringent rules.  How do I know someone is not profiting from this charitable venture?  Where are they made and are they made ethically?  Is the material used safe?  Is the supplier trust worthy?  Will they not just run of with the money?  Will we be seen to be profiting from a global pandemic?  I'm sure you can tick most if not all of these boxes but you didn't give me a chance to cause you didn't ask.

I could go on with many more but these are all the sort of questions I would need to ask before approving.  If you didn't even ask me beforehand I'd have probably done exactly what they did.  To you as a layman you are thinking "FFS I was only trying to help by selling a few bits of cloth".

Or maybe they just don't like the supporters trust and don't want to deal with you.  Could hardly blame them and pretty funny that any of you would be shocked about that.  Are these donations purely to help in tough times, holding out an olive branch?  I hope so as some of the complaints of a lack of thanks seem pretty petty and take away from the good gesture.  Of course some people are trying to make a public point.  Which is a shame at a time like this.  Thought maybe times like these may have opened up a bigger picture for everyone no matter what happened in the past.
That was a rant. And good on you mate. You made your point very well. I loved reading it, I could here your accent at the end.
Report Spam   Logged
DrillingCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4739


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2020, 20:29:42 pm »

As a board member of the trust, and one that absolutely backed this initiative...heres my take.

Firstly, MC Hammer. Really good posts. Came from an angle that I hadn't thought to be fair. I do though believe that politics came into it, rather than anything else. Thats my view, by the way and not the official Trusts view. But some really good posts and I appreciated reading them, and also learning that lots of considerations do have to be taken by a charity to accept money.

I also believe that this thread has been moved because of politics. But of course...I cant prove that!  Grin Grin

I think its a real shame that this couldn't have been fully backed, all things considered. But Im not going to lose any sleep over it. I support the club, the team, and am also an active board member of the trust. I think you can do all three. I do think though, that some people think of us as the enemy when in fact we are absolutely the opposite. Which is a shame.

Ill go back to talking crap on other threads now!  Grin
Report Spam   Logged
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2020, 22:31:30 pm »

As a board member of the trust, and one that absolutely backed this initiative...heres my take.

Firstly, MC Hammer. Really good posts. Came from an angle that I hadn't thought to be fair. I do though believe that politics came into it, rather than anything else. Thats my view, by the way and not the official Trusts view. But some really good posts and I appreciated reading them, and also learning that lots of considerations do have to be taken by a charity to accept money.

I also believe that this thread has been moved because of politics. But of course...I cant prove that!  Grin Grin

I think its a real shame that this couldn't have been fully backed, all things considered. But Im not going to lose any sleep over it. I support the club, the team, and am also an active board member of the trust. I think you can do all three. I do think though, that some people think of us as the enemy when in fact we are absolutely the opposite. Which is a shame.

Ill go back to talking crap on other threads now!  Grin

Nice to see we've got another lamb fallen prey to the Kingsley Park momentum party..
Report Spam   Logged
guest48
Guest
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2020, 00:39:34 am »

Nice to see Terry taking advantage of the easing of the lockdown by fishing again  Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Vintage Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2492


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2020, 09:07:18 am »

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.


Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2020, 14:18:32 pm »

As a board member of the trust, and one that absolutely backed this initiative...heres my take.

Firstly, MC Hammer. Really good posts. Came from an angle that I hadn't thought to be fair. I do though believe that politics came into it, rather than anything else. Thats my view, by the way and not the official Trusts view. But some really good posts and I appreciated reading them, and also learning that lots of considerations do have to be taken by a charity to accept money.

Thanks Drilling.  You seem like someone on the board that is actually open to see both sides of a situation and I appreciate that.  I get that past history is probably colouring peoples judgement but respectfully I think you are wrong on this occasion.  Having read the latest update from NTFC Community Trust copying an email they sent to Andy Roberts it appears they tried to have a discussion about it.  Pretty much everything they say in their email is exactly what I was saying.  It's not me trying to show how clever I am it's simply two people talking about an area we both clearly know well.

I'm disappointed to read the latest news update from the Supporters Trust and veiled threats to review their other donations to the CT are frankly very petty and will do nobody any favours.  The Supporters Trust should very much be holding up it's hands on this one and make clear they did not make any approach beforehand for approval and regrets not doing so.  It's completely the supporters trusts responsibility as the donor to do this.  Further dancing round the issue and comment not accepting responsibility is simply damaging the charity you all claim you were trying to support.

I know their initial statement will have put noses out of joint specifically those that seem hyper sensitive to anything that suits a specific agenda.  But the Community Trust absolutely had to make a quick public statement in the way they did to protect themselves for all the reasons I have stated previously.  As I said previously this is exactly the sort of thing I have done myself on a daily basis for 2 and half years.

Frankly everything that has happened could have been completely avoided if the Supporters Trust had simply made an approach in the first place.  Please, please, please take heed and make sure whatever charity you now plan to support is approached in the right way so you don't cause the same issue for someone else if they can't accept the donation.
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2020, 15:13:27 pm »

Let me balance the comments of MCHammer with some of my own.

Vintage I'm not quoting your whole post simply for brevity but I wanted to make clear I'm responding to you personally.

Let me make this clear.  I simply pointed out the examples I did in response to Barton stating that third party actions surely only damage the third party not the charity.  That statement is just completely wrong and that's a fact that has been proven a million times over in every country in the world including the UK.  Your answers regarding the actual face mask while welcome seem to miss the point.  Nobody is saying they aren't legit....I don't know and by your own lack of knowledge you probably don't either. 

The questions I raised about the product were simply demonstrating just some of the discussions that have to take place before I can accept donations from a donor.  Again I reiterate BEFORE.  That didn't happen and a charity has no choice but to publicly and strongly distance themselves quickly if this doesn't happen.  If you have experience in this area you should know this.  In addition the idea rejections are run past all or most trustees is frankly ridiculous.  If I would have had to do that in my previous role we'd have ground to a halt and been damaged massively by being so slow to react.

If your proposed donation falls foul of even just one of the charities guidelines/legal framework I should reject it immediately.  There is a process a donor can follow to complain if they disagree and I simply have to be able to prove at a later date the reasons for my rejection.

In addition all this talk of potential litigation etc. is simply missing the point.  A charity only exists because of it's reputation.  Anyone that has been involved in charity, business or any organisation know this to be the case.  But it's everything to charities.  I've demonstrated already on small and big levels like Lance Armstrong why this can be the case.  Damage to any charity reputation big or small can be fatal which is why these laws and guidelines exist and people get paid for making these decisions.  Charities big and small will scan social media on a daily basis to ensure both that nothing negative is causing damage but also so they can support other activities that may benefit them if they are acceptable.

Which leads me to my final very personal point to you, Barton, whoever Stefan is on Twitter and anyone else that chose this particular event to jump on and link to the owners/management team you so detest.  Try to take a breath and realise that maybe just maybe you might be wrong this time.  Your and others comments and criticism on social media including here is damaging both to the charity you claim you wanted to support and even to the supporters trust you quite clearly do support.  That's a fact.  By making potentially false claims that others were involved you could be propagating a lie and lead others down that route.  I've seen it happen already with responses to your tweet from several days ago.  If you have direct evidence that you are not lying prove it publicly.  You would have nothing to fear if it's true.  I notice you don't like naming names which kind of implies you can't prove something.

If not go and read the latest update from the community trust but first taking off the tin foil conspiracy hat and realise they are saying exactly what I said days ago.  Yes they are damage limiting but they are damage limiting because of the supporters trust not approaching them and subsequent cronies posting damaging, unjust criticism for not accepting the donation.

If you and the trust had any level of decency you would hold your hands apologise for the misunderstanding and move on.  But you and others seem more interested in proving a point and trying to save face than doing the right thing and holding your hands up.

Finally this is the very reason why I have so little time for the supporters trust and specifically some fanatics like you that support them and come across like you represent them.  There is seemingly no ability to get people on board and grow the reputation.  Even though I'm know it is full of people that mean well it's constantly let down by ill considered actions an inability to understand public perception and gain support.  Just look at the responses both official and unofficial in the last few days to this situation.  Everything just damaging to all involved and benefiting nobody and all people want to do is play the blame game rather than look see the bigger picture.  You are actually trying to damage the thing you started off trying to help.  What's the sense in that?  All of this simply underlines strongly why I would never want a community ownership model lead by the trust in it's current makeup and with some of the current people involved.  It would be a disaster waiting to happen which is surely what you want to get away from.

Oh and also if a mod would move this thread back to Cobblers Comments I'd massively appreciate it.  It's a shame some of the points being made will be missed by the majority when the vocal criticism elsewhere is not being balanced by comments such as mine.
Report Spam   Logged
guest48
Guest
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2020, 15:49:53 pm »

Thanks Drilling.  You seem like someone on the board that is actually open to see both sides of a situation and I appreciate that.  I get that past history is probably colouring peoples judgement but respectfully I think you are wrong on this occasion.  Having read the latest update from NTFC Community Trust copying an email they sent to Andy Roberts it appears they tried to have a discussion about it.  Pretty much everything they say in their email is exactly what I was saying. 
Whilst we are in the mood for corrections, you state " Having read the latest update from NTFC Community Trust copying an email they sent to Andy Roberts it appears they tried to have a discussion about it". The facts are that NTFC Community Trust put out a statement saying they wouldn't accept the money, not a problem for me although I disagree entirely with their reasoning, then after they had put out the statement, they contacted Andy Roberts to discuss it, surely they should have discussed their concerns and worries BEFORE putting out a statement, where they questioned the standards of the masks, when they had no information about the masks . Another fact is that any question they had about the masks, all the answers are on the Trust webpage, in the advert selling the masks.
      I accept your point that the Trust should have spoke to the Community Trust beforehand, so do you accept my point that the Community Trust should have spoke to the Trust before issuing a statement?
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2020, 16:27:31 pm »

Whilst we are in the mood for corrections, you state " Having read the latest update from NTFC Community Trust copying an email they sent to Andy Roberts it appears they tried to have a discussion about it". The facts are that NTFC Community Trust put out a statement saying they wouldn't accept the money, not a problem for me although I disagree entirely with their reasoning, then after they had put out the statement, they contacted Andy Roberts to discuss it, surely they should have discussed their concerns and worries BEFORE putting out a statement, where they questioned the standards of the masks, when they had no information about the masks . Another fact is that any question they had about the masks, all the answers are on the Trust webpage, in the advert selling the masks.
      I accept your point that the Trust should have spoke to the Community Trust beforehand, so do you accept my point that the Community Trust should have spoke to the Trust before issuing a statement?

Personally I'm more than happy to accept that although I'm also happy to say it's purely courtesy but they are not obliged to and they would still have had to put out the same initial statement to protect themselves.  The onus is very much not on the charity to phone you or view your website to alleviate their concerns.  For a start the detail on your website is very limited and by no means would have made any difference to the decision.

Are you saying they are lying then as the email says "We moved quickly to put out a statement after we couldn’t get hold of you earlier to protect and adhere to the fundraising codes of practice we must follow."  Did they not try and call Andy or someone else is that a lie?

The fact you still think they wrong for rejecting the donation even after all they and I have explained also is baffling to me and doesn't bode well for the future.

While we are in the mood for corrections will the Supporters Trust be offering a further public update as requested by the community trust acknowledging they didn't and should have contacted them before publicly launching this initiative which put the CT in a difficult position.  Ultimately that is what caused the problem in the first place.  Perhaps the Supporters Trust could build some bridges my publicly criticising those that have publicly and privately been abusing the charity and it's employees due to this mess you have caused.  You could maybe even privately have a conversation with people like Vintage etc. who are clearly vocal public supporters of the ST and suggest that trying to link a donation being rejected to the senior leadership teams dislike is to the benefit of nobody.

Finally what did the latest update regarding reviewing donations to the CT mean and why is this taking place?  Has this been triggered by this situation?  Also how do you know this is or isn't what your members want to happen? 
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 16:37:05 pm by MCHammer » Report Spam   Logged
guest48
Guest
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2020, 17:11:30 pm »

Personally I'm more than happy to accept that although I'm also happy to say it's purely courtesy but they are not obliged to and they would still have had to put out the same initial statement to protect themselvesSurely, as a Charity, you would show that courtesy to people who donate money to you ? .  The onus is very much not on the charity to phone you or view your website to alleviate their concernsMaybe not, but if you want people to donate money surely you do your best not to put them in a disadvantaged position.  For a start the detail on your website is very limited and by no means would have made any difference to the decision.OK tell me what you would need to know that you cannot find out on the site

Are you saying they are lying then as the email says "We moved quickly to put out a statement after we couldn’t get hold of you earlier to protect and adhere to the fundraising codes of practice we must follow."  Did they not try and call Andy or someone else is that a lie?They certainly didn't try to get hold of anyone else, the main man at the Community Trust has my details and no one tried to get in touch with me

The fact you still think they wrong for rejecting the donation even after all they and I have explained also is baffling to me and doesn't bode well for the futureWe've been through this and as I said, if Captain Tom had fell over doing his walk would people blame the NHS, can you give me an answer on that?.

While we are in the mood for corrections will the Supporters Trust be offering a further public update as requested by the community trust acknowledging they didn't and should have contacted them before publicly launching this initiative which put the CT in a difficult position. If they had got in touch with us ,before they went public, we could have removed their name from our ads and I doubt anyone would have been the wiser Ultimately that is what caused the problem in the first place.  Perhaps the Supporters Trust could build some bridges my publicly criticising those that have publicly and privately been abusing the charity and it's employeesCould you provide some evidence of "abuse" please due to this mess you have caused.  You could maybe even privately have a conversation with people like Vintage etc. who are clearly vocal public supporters of the ST and suggest that trying to link a donation being rejected to the senior leadership teams dislike is to the benefit of nobody ??.

Finally what did the latest update regarding reviewing donations to the CT mean and why is this taking place?This review was decided on when we agreed to donate the Club 500 money at the start of the crisis  Has this been triggered by this situation?No  Also how do you know this is or isn't what your members want to happen?We don't ask the members about every decision we make, that's what boards do. If our members don't like the decisions we make, they have the opportunity every year to remove us 
Report Spam   Logged
Vintage Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2492


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2020, 18:15:00 pm »

MCH, I am going to have to be a bit careful in what I say for obvious reasons.  I think you also need to be careful with your comments directed at me about having a “specific agenda”, “propagating a lie” and so on.  It is increasingly becoming routine for people who hold different views to accuse those with whom they have a difference of opinion of having an “agenda”.  And you and my adversaries do not?

Barton has already said that the timetable of events as put out by the CT is incorrect, i.e. the CT’s first statement was issued ahead of any contact with the Trust’s Chairman and that certainly raises questions. 

I have set out in my lengthy post earlier today my comments to balance those you posted strongly defending the CT’s position.  You ask about ‘Stefan”.  I know that he is a very senior medical professional, someone much better placed than you or to comment on face masks.

Hindsight and all that but, yes, I think with the benefit of that knowledge an advance discussion with the CT should have taken place.  As I said I have not been involved in this project, but I did hear of it a few days before its announcement and I did comment to a Trust director that I would not recommend the donation to the CT for reasons of the state of the relationship with the club’s owners.  What I was concerned about was some kind of unfriendly reaction and so there was but you believe it was from the CT alone without any external influence.

We can see that, directly or indirectly, there is the bigger issue involved behind the face masks debate of the Trust-club owners relationship.  My personal views, which are just that, are well known, unchanged and set out over a long period of time on the Redevelopment thread.  The issues and background giving rise to these views are as relevant today as pre-COVID-19 but have been parked for the time being due to COVID-19 and because the EFL landscape is going to be much changed and we have to see how our club comes out of it.  That said, I have for a long time advocated on this site community ownership along the German 50+1 lines.  It has to come to the EFL especially in Leagues 1 & 2. The current crisis will hasten its arrival. 


Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Parental guidance is urged as this messageboard may not be suitable for all persons especially those under the age of 16 as the forums may contain words, phrases and expressions not considered appropriate for a younger audience so please express caution. If any posts in the forums offend you, please let us know and we will look at them and if we agree with your complaint, we will remove them. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and may be sued should your posting contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. We check the forums at various times of the day and remove offending posts. Other supporters are welcome but abusive or silly posts will be removed and the offenders potentially barred from future access to the site. We advise that you never reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: telephone number, home address or email address), and please do not include postal addresses of any kind. This messageboard is not endorsed or in any way affiliated with Northampton Town FC. All postings on this board become copyright of The Hotel End & may not be reproduced without the permission of the board administrator. By signing up to this message board you agree to this. The Hotel End cannot be held liable for the actions or postings of its members. The Hotel End reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. The Hotel End may disclose user information to government authorities at their discretion or when required by law. The Hotel End may also disclose user information when The Hotel End has reason to believe that someone is causing injury to or interference with its rights or property, other The Hotel End users, or anyone else that could be harmed by such activities. By registering for The Hotel End, you agree to indemnify The Hotel End its representatives, and agents, and hold them harmless from any and all claims (including claims for legal fees) which may arise from your participation on the The Hotel End. You also agree that The Hotel End is not responsible for the materials posted by users of The Hotel End. In addition, you grant The Hotel End and its affiliates, worldwide, royalty-free perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message or content posted on The Hotel End and/or e-mail sent by you to The Hotel End (in whole or in part). The Hotel End reserves the right to make the rules up as it goes along. Thank you - The Hotel End I love Quidco
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMFServer.com - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy