MCHammer
|
Barton, I'll try again but it's starting to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall.
I would show you courtesy by trying to get in touch but with all due respect my priority is the reputation and legal protection of my charity. The statement they put out wasn't to hurt your feelings it was to protect themselves. Charities have a legal obligation to do so in this very way and act quickly. If it hurt your or the Trusts feelings or put some noses out of joint don't be so sensitive and maybe think about running it by them in advance next time. In the job I did previously I unfortunately had to disappoint a great many people like yourself who thought they were just trying to do a good thing. A great many of them, like you, still didn't get it but the charity benefitted much more by protecting themselves than upsetting a non understanding donor.
I've already listed loads of stuff previously re what I would need to know about the masks and I'm not going to bore everyone by listing everything. I have no idea what the suppliers are called. Who they are? How much profit they are making from these masks? Whether the materials used are ethically sourced. Remember just because the masks are not made is some child labour sweat shop doesn't mean the materials used aren't.....I'm not saying they are by the way before you have a go. I just don't know and THAT'S the point. Do they meet British clothing manufacturing guidelines? Selling child versions sets off massive alarm bells as the standards are far higher. I'm not even talking medical standards here which is what Vintage, you and others seem to have been sidetracked by.
Your Captain Tom analogy is ridiculous and I'm not even sure I understand what you are trying to say. I've given you 3 (big, medium and small) examples of where actions of a third party damaged a charity. Not just legally but most importantly reputationally.
So worse case scenario a child with asthma wears your face mask and dies. Headline reads "Cobblers charity mask kills toddler". The Supporters trust are in big trouble, the manufacturer probably but you've also massively damaged the reputation of the football club and the NTFC community trust charity. Worse of all it's not "Supporters Trust" masks killed my child it's "Cobblers" mask killed my child. Do you see now? The CT would have massive questions to answer about why they allowed themselves to support this initiative.
Less dramatic scenario. Masks shrink in the wash or fall to bits after first wash. People go online criticising "Cobblers masks". What if the CT bring out a clothing range six months later and people say I'm not buying that rubbish remember the masks? Again you will say but it's the manufacturers fault or the ST's fault but publicly the CT and club are directly linked in peoples minds.
You say they didn't try and get hold of you. Did they try and get hold of Andy beforehand like they said or is that a lie? Simple question that you should know the answer to as you online met about this yesterday I believe. You can't simply keep using them not getting in contact to put the blame on them. It's YOUR (the ST's) initiative. YOU should have run it by them first. YOU put them in this position in the first place. Stop blaming them for not retrospectively trying to make something ok YOU (the ST) messed up.
I have no direct evidence of abuse I'm referring to that mentioned in the email to Andy. I doubt Phil is lying about this. Would be strange if he is. I have seen tweets and comments on here directly trying to link the donation being refused to senior leadership of the club. I've also seen tweets calling people "small minded" and "petty" for refusing the donation. Again I state this as some of the comments are from people that are very vocal supporters and members of your organisation. I mention Vintage specifically as it may feel to the ST that what he does and says it is support of the trust but what he says online at times also causes you great damage. People thinking they are avoiding legal action by not naming names need to be careful if they can't back up their comments with evidence. It just does nobody including the Trust any favours in the long run.
Your final comment once again sums up everything that is wrong with the Trusts thinking or maybe it's just your thinking if the others aren't like this. EVERYTHING you do should be for the supporters and football club benefit and you are simply custodians acting in the best interests of your membership. Suggesting you can make these decisions as we voted you in and can vote you out is ridiculous. Have you any idea if the membership wants you to continue/stop donating to the CT? If the answer is "no idea" than that sums up your problem and the bigger problem for the trust moving forward. You have minimal two way conversation/engagement with your members. I see the improvements you have made in outward communication but what about inward? What feedback if any do you seek/receive? Look at the online forum you set up. There is no interaction other than with the radically engaged and frankly some of those if they are being listened to do more harm than good.
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
MCH, may I politely but firmly ask you to desist with some of the comments you are making about me. To quote from your most recent response to Barton: I mention Vintage specifically as it may feel to the ST that what he does and says it is support of the trust but what he says online at times also causes you great damage.
This is defamatory. You are digging a hole for yourself and it is getting deeper.
I have been responding to your comments on the CT-Trust situation in a measured way, based on the facts and this is how you react. You are demeaning yourself and undermining your own arguments.
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
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?
LOL I nearly spat my drink out when I read that. You accused someone the other day of working for the club or the CT when they posted a contrary view to your own. Pot kettle. I don't need to be careful about my comments to you unless you are going to misquote me like you have. You very much have an agenda. Are you saying you don't. The issue for you is that you are so set in your view everything is made to fit it even when maybe, just maybe some of it might not. You also accuse most if not all people that disagree that they have some secret agenda. Thread gets moved....need I say more. You've admitted yourself you expected this donation to be rejected and you already knew your reason why. Which then fulfilled your expectations. I'm telling you from a charity perspective they could never have accepted this donation whether the senior management wanted them to or not. If you have experience of charities like you say you would know this and probably would have helped the ST by telling them that. You should have also advised them to approach the CT for approval prior to going public. As for Stefan I mentioned him as he was joining your public criticism of the donation being rejected due to senior management. I couldn't care if he's an ice cream man or brain surgeon. There is a lot of conflicting medical advice out there at the moment and I agree I'm always happy to bow to people with experience which by the way was simply why I commented on this in the first place. I could see it was going in a strange direction and having a lot of knowledge on the subject was trying to help people understand why there could and probably was a valid reason for the rejection. This has sort of been backed up by the fact they are pretty much saying the exact same things I did two days ago in the email they released. Finally I didn't say you were "propagating a lie". I said you could potentially be doing so by tweeting and posting that accusation on public forums without having direct evidence to support your claim. Also as I say elsewhere if you have the evidence name names. Nothing to fear if you are telling the truth and can prove it....that's the law.
|
|
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 18:34:42 pm by MCHammer »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
It is time to close this exchange in the interests of other readers who can draw their own conclusions from the views being expressed above.
|
|
|
|
guest48
|
I had typed a long reply to MCH but, between watering the garden and having my tea there has been 3 more post, I agree with Vintage that its time to close, but I really had to answer the last part of MCH post. We are very conscientious of the fact that we act in the best interests of our members, the supporters of NTFC, but for you to suggest that every decision made by the Trust board is put to the members for approval is utter rubbish and you know it, there is a "Contact us" section on our web page and all question get an answer. You say "Suggesting you can make these decisions as we voted you in and can vote you out is ridiculous" think about it !!!!!! Then go and tell Johnson at Number 10 that democracy is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
We are very conscientious of the fact that we act in the best interests of our members, the supporters of NTFC, but for you to suggest that every decision made by the Trust board is put to the members for approval is utter rubbish and you know it, there is a "Contact us" section on our web page and all question get an answer.
You've missed the point by miles which at this stage I'm not even surprised about. If you could point out where I said you should run all decisions by your membership feel free. Regular two way engagement with your membership and wider support base allows you to know what they want and what direction you should follow. Otherwise it's just a load of old men/women in a room (or on Zoom) making it up as they go along. If you think "Contact Us" on a web page is this then I give up. Stay safe and healthy everyone. Remember you are never to old to learn something new and it's ok to make a mistake as long as you acknowledge it and learn from it.
|
|
|
|
tcobb
|
I think we can see the blood starting to run down your forehead now MC
|
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
Shame, I had popcorn and everything...
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
You've missed the point by miles which at this stage I'm not even surprised about. If you could point out where I said you should run all decisions by your membership feel free. Regular two way engagement with your membership and wider support base allows you to know what they want and what direction you should follow. Otherwise it's just a load of old men/women in a room (or on Zoom) making it up as they go along. If you think "Contact Us" on a web page is this then I give up.
Stay safe and healthy everyone. Remember you are never to old to learn something new and it's ok to make a mistake as long as you acknowledge it and learn from it.
Good attempt MC. But you’re wasting your breath with the Kingsley Park navel gazing society. 😀.
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
You and MCH are engaging in being gratuitously insulting.
Birds of a feather ...................
|
|
|
|
tcobb
|
Barton has left the building, beware of low flying dummies
|
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
|
|
|
guest3355
|
Makes sense. Got their own forum now haven't they where they can whip themselves into a frenzy and pretend they speak for the "people".
Terry Fenners put it perfectly "there is no appetite for it".
Two things need to happen. 1. The Trust needs a complete overhaul and complete rethink, it's a clique, it is full of people with an agenda and they are utterly childish. (Good people in the main by the way, but brainwashed)
|
|
|
|
guest3355
|
2. Vintage needs a hobby.
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
3. I have a hobby and that's dealing with ill informed people like yourself who want to and seemingly do believe the spin put out by our owners.
Just consider if you will if what I write or raise serious and detailed questions about e.g. the redevelopment and the unanswered matters in respect of 5USport turns out to be true. Just take some time out to read the Redevelopment thread which like 'War & Peace" is a lengthy read.
In the meantime by all means continue to place your trust in an owner based in the UAE who has been to about 4 matches in approaching 5 years (present circumstances excepted). I wonder why but obviously you and fellow travellers do not. You will see how it pans out.
|
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
Makes sense. Got their own forum now haven't they where they can whip themselves into a frenzy and pretend they speak for the "people".
I'm not sure that will help with the clique aspect of things; I've just looked at it and it's three days short of a month since anyone posted on there and that was Barton! In the past 2 months only two people have posted anything - Barton and Andy Roberts! Still, at least they'll have 100% agreement on anything they discuss in the future.
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
Even better, sticking pins in a voodoo doll that looks remarkably like you.
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
I really don't understand why the Trust is made out to be the villain in the piece. Yes they might not be perfect, yes they might be ways of being more effective, but they are only doing what they think is best for the supporters of NTFC and NTFC itself. Can there be any doubt about that, am I being naive here?
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
I really don't understand why the Trust is made out to be the villain in the piece. Yes they might not be perfect, yes they might be ways of being more effective, but they are only doing what they think is best for the supporters of NTFC and NTFC itself. Can there be any doubt about that, am I being naive here?
I don’t think they are. As I said in my initial post. As far as I can see, it is the customary way in which CERTAIN elements of the Trust reacted to the money being refused, that appears to have got a reaction... Most people are bored of the childish point scoring against the club. I’m sure the Trusts intentions were nothing other than honourable.
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
I really don't understand why the Trust is made out to be the villain in the piece. Yes they might not be perfect, yes they might be ways of being more effective, but they are only doing what they think is best for the supporters of NTFC and NTFC itself. Can there be any doubt about that, am I being naive here?
You are not being naive at all. The Trust is a broad church, it has to be. The current Trust board is in my experience representative of that church. There are a number of people on this site in particular who are highly critical of the Trust. You only have to read above. My old sparring friend Tel is a case in point. If he considers he represents an unheard, unrepresented body of opinion then at the board re-election elections last autumn it was for to him and others (e.g. MCH, BOTN) to be nominated to the Board of directors. Not one of them came forward or were nominated for election which suggests such people do not have the support base needed and tells you all you need to know about their mandate. So, if you are under the impression they represent a majority you may well be labouring under a misapprehension.
|
|
|
|
|