Stay Safe (& Alert !)

[Vintage Cobbler]

There is no point scoring.  But I tell you what - why don't you or MCH, who says he knows the players, make a call to the CT''s CEO Phil White and ask him who wrote the first CT release before making any contact with the Trust and then you consider the point I made about the possibility of a conflict of interest and the matter of external influence/interference and then ask yourself why. Charity Commission guidance is clear as is the law.

This matter is a storm in a teacup but for some anything to embarrass the Trust and weaken its standing is fair game. 

One further point - please stop conflating "club" with its owners and their lackeys. 

[tcobb]

Vintage, it is a storm in a teacup, so why are you making such a big thing out of it? It looks like your agenda is to put down and embarrass the Club every chance you get, maybe its you and your lackeys who are the biggest problem.

[Vintage Cobbler]

Let us once and for all differentiate  between the club and its supporter base.  Two very different things.  I am a supporter STH for 30 + years.

I am not looking to embarrass the club. I am telling you and those that read this thread how it is. Many are in complete denial and they will be massively embarrassed in time.

 I throw down a challenge to any of my detractors to contest what I have posted on the Redevelopment thread about the intentions of our owners on the development and the mysterious 5USport debacle and for them to tell me where I am wrong. So, let's be hearing from them with their views. 

[tcobb]

Why do we need to ? A lot of people are not that happy with the way the Club has been run, but, there is no viable alternative. The Trust is not and never will be an alternative. You do not do yourself any favours with the constant put downs and sniping  of the Club and the people who run it. Ive been a Supporter since i was 10 years old, a member of the Trust when it first started, and was proud to be. But people like you put me off the Trust years ago, at the moment ill take the current owners, not the best, but im afraid you and your friends do not have the backing of the fan base by any means. Which is a big shame as we are all supporters of the same club, but the Trust are dividing the supporters with their current stance.

[Vintage Cobbler]

tcobb, you are music to KT''s ears and cannon fodder.   There you have it, our Chairman acting always in the best interests of the club.   What a selfless man is our Chairman. Proud to be indeed.  But let's see where it all ends. 

May I ask, do you ever consider for one moment why our owners are here and their underlying motives?  All for the love of NTFC or could those 30+ acres behind the shell of the East Stand have something to do with it?  If you think this all ok then I have nothing useful to add.

[tcobb]

Did you actually read my post ? I dont think you did, or if you did for some reason it didnt register with your brain cell. Read it again.

[Vintage Cobbler]

tcobb. I am not the Trust and I do not post on anyone's behalf other than my own. If you have issues with the Trust please take your concerns there. 

One other point - do not conflate our club with its owners.  No one could be more pro club than me but you need to separate the two.

[guest3355]

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.

Could not agree more.

The Trust (Barton) comes across as petty, childish and looking to score points.

Not questioning the Trusts intentions. They could be a fantastic supporters trust. At the moment, they are not. Doesn't mean they don't have the clubs best interests at heart. They need to be more professional.

I will finish with this, the club could have ended the Trust, obliterated them if you will. Chose not to. Chose to not comment on them.

Does it mean I agree with everything the club does? Absolutely not.

Anyway, off to send KT a belated valentine's card.

[guest3338]

'Got to say, purely from reading Bartons posts, he absolutely doesn't come across as petty, childish or looking to score points to me.
Customary way'...does this kind of thing happens a lot?

[MCHammer]

Vintage, may I politely but firmly ask you to retract some of the false comments you have made about me today.  To quote.

But I tell you what - why don't you or MCH, who says he knows the players, make a call to the CT''s CEO Phil White

I do not know any players, never claimed I did (what are you talking about?).  Actually that's a lie I know my U15 football players and I've just messaged the group and none of them know who wrote the initial CT statement.

Further I quote.

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.

For starters what's the going rate of votes to get nominated or elected to the board.  What majority do they have?

I have not claimed at any stage to represent a majority or have a mandate.    I have opinions.  I also believe it's pretty impossible to dismiss someones viewpoint us unpopular or not supported just because they didn't stand for election to the board of the ST.  If that's the case does that mean only their views count.  My wife didn't stand for election or got nominated either but she'll tell you she's always right.

Failure to retract these statements within 24 hours will lead to further action that may include anything from me being a little bit annoyed or possibly going to bed in a bad mood.  I'll leave it to you but don't make me take it further.

I see you are now also referencing the Charity Commission and the law surrounding charities.  I'll ask again.  If you have so much knowledge in this area....when you spoke to that board member a couple of days before the launch of the face mask initiative.  Remember that?  Why didn't you, with all this legal knowledge and expertise at your disposal, not mention that the donation would not be accepted without first gaining approval.  Just wondering.  I know how disappointed you were when it got rejected, just look at your tweet. 

I quote from Twitter at 4pm 12/02/2020:

"You make yourselves look small minded and pathetic.  Whose idiotic decision is this or inspired by who?  I think I know the answer. Explain to the supporter base what is the "acceptable standard" you are talking about.  Answer there is none.
@ntfc"

This just over an hour after the CT statement was released.  You seemed to decide very quickly for someone that doesn't like knee jerk or ill thought out responses.  It's almost like you expected it to get rejected?

If you have direct evidence that a charity has rejected a donation on personal grounds then report it.  They have broken the law.  You are fast becoming the first person in history to successfully make a negative donation to a charity you claimed to support.

Finally I don't need to phone Phil (one of if not the head honcho at NTFC Community Trust I believe though I've never met him honestly unless he was on some charity seminar in Nottingham back in the mid 2000s)  I called him this afternoon.  I've transcribed the call as best I can below so there is no misquoting/misunderstanding.

Me - "Hi Phil"

Phil - "Who is this?"

Me - "You don't know me but my name is MCHammer"

Phil - "What the real one, Can't touch this?"

Me - "Nice one Phil no that's just my name on the internet forum The Hotel End"

Phil - "Oh FFS how did you get my home phone number?"

Me - "No wait Phil let me explain"

Phil - "You have 30 seconds"

Me - " Me and this other guy Vintage Cobbler, at least I think he's a guy, it's the Internet and who hasn't fallen foul of that one am I right Phil?   We are having a disagreement regarding the timeline of events and who wrote the initial statement from the Community Trust rejecting their donation of face masks.  We are trying to prove who is right because if Vintage is it will mean he can add this to the dossier he is compiling but much more than that he can win an argument on an internet forum, which as we all know is bigger than winning the World Cup!  I know the answer could put you in a difficult legal position but he says someone from the football club intervened and wants me to get a name."

Silence

Me - "Phil it's just me you and an internet forum that will know."

Silence

Me - "Phil do the right thing.  It's what your kids would want if you have any.

Silence

Me - "Phil if you don't want to say a name just give me their first initials.  I can keep your identity....."

......DIAL TONE

And that's it.  At first I thought he had just hung up but then I thought but that's silly why would he do that to an internet forum user called MCHammer who had called him on his home phone on a Sunday during a global pandemic lockdown.  Then I realised.  Kelvin Thomas (I don't care I'm naming names, sue me) obviously wire taps Phil's phone and when he could see was cracking under my intense questioning cut the line.

So I tell you what Vintage why don't you phone him yourself.  I'm sure it would fine.

I'm out of here.  I'll let you get back to your Flat Earth box set.

[Vintage Cobbler]

MCH, in response to your most recent post directed at me we have both engaged in a heated exchange with you also alleging to Barton that what he (VC) “says online at times also causes you (ST) great damage.” The brackets are added for correct interpretation.  I think you also need to make a retraction.  I responded over the weekend to your lengthy posts in defence of the actions of the CT in a measured way presenting an alternative perspective on the situation.  Over the weekend you were also involved in some robust exchanges with Barton.

My last post was not only directed at you but also others with whom I have had been involved with on this site over a long period of time on a range of subjects concerning the club matters and in particular the Redevelopment and connected matters.  I cannot recall you being involved with me on these matters and therefore let us deal with the face mask issue in the context of our exchanges on that subject.  I retract comments about the Trust board and you joining it because they do not apply to you.  Several on this site have previously alleged that the Trust is unrepresentative of the supporter base and if that is so (I don’t agree) joining or seeking to join the Trust’s board would be an obvious step to take.  Not the only one but one.

You have made the case for the CT.  I have presented another view.   Barton says that the first statement issued by the CT was posted before any conversation was held with the Trust’s Chairman or any other Trust director.  I have been told the same as Barton and knew this at the time the tweet you quote was posted.   The CT appear to have rowed back a bit with its second more conciliatory statement.

I think it fair to comment that your view is that the CT had to make the decision it reached and to make it quickly.  Certainly, it is the CT’s right to decline any donation but I would say that there was no need to publish its decision and publish its reasons on its website and social media. I wonder if CT has had to decline other donations in the past and posted news of the rejection in social media within a few hours.  By way of comparison Wycombe Wanderers ST launched their face masks project ahead of our ST, using the same manufacturer (a Bucks based company, not a Far East sweat shop) and made to the same specification.  WWFC are advertising the WWST's masks on their official site and I am told that at the beginning of last week over 600 had been sold.  Profits are going to a local food-bank. Therefore, WWFC appear to have no concerns over product liability, child labour, name connection or any of the other matters you have mentioned.  WWFC is owned by an American and I think will be very aware of litigation risks etc..  Down the road in Northampton, the Saints are also selling face masks on their website and the proceeds are to be divided equally between the NHS and the Saints Foundation, the latter being a charity.  No issues appear to have arisen with either WWST or the Saints.  The comparison with WW ST is particularly relevant.

The conversation I had with a Trust director was just that. I thought that there would be a reaction in some way due to the poor relationship between the Trust and the club’s owners.  Therefore, if it was my decision, sadly I would not have been in favour of donating to the CT on this occasion for the reason stated.  It is also relevant to make the point that the two organisations are well known to each other and the Trust has been donating to the CT over the past couple of months its profits from the Trust’s monthly draw.

To expand on the context of the matter the status of the relationship with the club’s owners and the Trust this has been in decline since about January 2019.  If you are interested take a look at the Trust’s news on its website for March 2020 following the Trust’s sponsorship of the match against Exeter City.  If you, by chance, have the match day programme for that game see the paltry space given by the club to the Trust and that given to Sixfields Travel.  On that day there was a conspicuous absence in the programme of the normal thanks to the match’s sponsors. Petty and small minded by those responsible for this snub?   I wonder who made that decision. The CT-Trust situation was in my view an accident waiting to happen.   Hindsight can be a wonderful thing. 

I was under the incorrect impression that you know the CT’s CEO so, abolutely, I retract that comment.

Readers can draw their own conclusions whether the background information outlined above had any bearing on the decision made to reject the Trust’s donations.  Probably damage has been caused to both the CT and the Trust and future sales may be affected.   That strikes me as just plain stupid and unnecessarily so. 

Now profits will go it seems a local health charity which is ironic.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Pure observations/questions from what you have said:  (apart from being a Trust member, I don't have a side in this particular argument)
1.  Were WWFC and The Saints consulted prior to it being made public that the masks were 'going' to  be sold and therefore reassured of their source, standard and the other questions etc.. prior to them being advertised as such?
2.  If not, were WWFC and The Saints able to contact the organisation supplying and selling them, prior to or immediately following publication of the announcement that they were going to be sold and where the profits were going within a 'reasonable time' in order to confirm/clarify the above?  Bearing in mind, that a reasonable time' in preventing reputational damage is relative to the person/organisation who will potentially be the victim.

If the answer to either is yes, their agreement and acceptance would obviously have gone without too much of a hitch.
If the answers are no, I would also argue that their compliance with basic Charity guidelines (either the Vintage or MCH versions) have been ignored to a possible detriment of their own reputation, which it appears for now they have been fortunate to have avoided.

The answer to the same questions between NTFC Trust and NTFC CT, from the information provided, appear to have been NO to both therefore inevitably there was a hitch.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I would argue that it was the responsibility of NTFC Trust to ensure that either or both of these confirmation/consultations had been carried out.  From the evidence, they didn't.

[guest3338]

Exactly the same personal position as you DC.

As I see it the issues are also the contact between the two groups, and how much reputational damage would have been done.
If they were of a proper standard as they now appear to be, evidencing WWFC,  why would 'reputational' damage occur?
Lack of trust, and lack contact then, or attempts to, one way or another.
If the online exchanges mirror the feelings between the two sides, it's all a bit sad imo.

Popcorn double feature
Whole world's a funny farm.

[MCHammer]

Vintage.  I've spent more time on this both than I should and want to.  I have little desire to keep banging my head against the proverbial brick wall.  You drew a line under this on Saturday but woke up Sunday and carried on as if nothing had happened mentioning me personally in two separate posts with completely false claims.

I tried to post last night in a way that demonstrated the ridiculous nature of what this has now become but it seems you have good news in that your humour bypass operation was a success.  Must use more smileys next time.

I read the statements again a moment ago from the NTFC Community Trust and the Supporters Trust because I just wondered whether I'm missing something.  For me they say and demonstrate in their tone everything that needs to be said about both organisations.  I've linked them below and urge anyone with an interest in this still (and if you have what is wrong with you) go and read them and truly read what has been said  (try to read with an open mind without bias if you can).  Then if you haven't had enough read what Barton and Vintage have said to me particularly on Saturday and ask yourself whether this is what you want YOUR supporters trust to be and is this is the relationship you want them to have with the football club.  You might answer "Yes" and that's absolutely within your right to do so.  If you want another contrasting view look at how Drilling responded to me compared to Barton.  He didn't agree with me either by the way.

NTFC Community Trust statements (Read the bottom one first)
https://www.ntfccommunity.co.uk/news 

NTFC Supporters Trust Statement
https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/statement-ntfc-community-trust 

Personally I think Deepcut raised some valuable points that I completely agree with a couple of posts ago that deserve an answer but other than that there is little else to be said.

I hope you get your day in the sun when you get to tell us all "I told you so" and that it doesn't feel too hollow when it's too late and you realise that you failed to take anyone that matters on that journey with you that could have made a difference.

I'll keep reading but am out of this for the time being unless you misquote or misrepresent me again.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

I have read the linked pieces MCH, thank you.
Within the NTFC Trust statement, the intimation remains that the Community Trust are totally to blame.
It also states that the Community Trust had implied something of the NTFC Trust, which they clearly didn't.
The whole NTFC statement gives the impression that the author was trying to be clever, but without the words and know how to achieve it.  Very immature.
In addition, comparing this to the fact that Wycombe Wanderers Supporters Trust and other sporting clubs have accepted their version of the masks is an unreasonable comparison and at best misleading.   

[guest3338]

I have read the linked pieces MCH, thank you.
Within the NTFC Trust statement, the intimation remains that the Community Trust are totally to blame.
It also states that the Community Trust had implied something of the NTFC Trust, which they clearly didn't.
The whole NTFC statement gives the impression that the author was trying to be clever, but without the words and know how to achieve it.  Very immature.
In addition, comparing this to the fact that Wycombe Wanderers Supporters Trust and other sporting clubs have accepted their version of the masks is an unreasonable comparison and at best misleading.   

Isn't that your own interpretation of the two statements and copied email, and no more DC?
I think the trust statement could have been better written but I don't agree that it intimates the CT are totally to blame, or that it is actually apportioning any. I think it tries to offer an explanation of events and no more. Nor do I think it is written in a childish or deliberately malicious way.
Would it have been possible for the CT to reconsider their decision not to accept the donation once communication between the two parties had been achieved, if they were then satisfied of the suitability of the masks?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

When I moved this thread, I somewhat remarkably guessed where it would go. At the time, Roger was right to ask for it to remain in the Cobblers comment section. But it was clear right from the start that it was going to go in one direction.

From my perspective.... The club and the CT have every right to express an opinion on what they participate in. Anything that involves their names should be run past them past. All the time, and every time. Whilst in this case there was no ill intent, there is numerous stories out there about rogue trading in the name of charity.

For me the ridiculous aspect of this was the opportunist nature of certain elements, who once again seized upon the opportunity to promote a wider agenda. All of us are hugely aware of the issues between the club and the Trust. But what is so tiresome, is the incessant need to use any opportunity to suggest that any issue is indicative of the festering situation around the redevelopment. As I have said repeatedly, we are ALL graphically aware of the situation with the redevelopment, and the very staunch views of the Trust and a few others. But it is past embarrassing that everything leads to that and the agendas of a small few dirty the waters for all.   

[guest3338]

When I moved this thread, I somewhat remarkably guessed where it would go. At the time, Roger was right to ask for it to remain in the Cobblers comment section. But it was clear right from the start that it was going to go in one direction.

From my perspective.... The club and the CT have every right to express an opinion on what they participate in. Anything that involves their names should be run past them past. All the time, and every time. Whilst in this case there was no ill intent, there is numerous stories out there about rogue trading in the name of charity.

For me the ridiculous aspect of this was the opportunist nature of certain elements, who once again seized upon the opportunity to promote a wider agenda. All of us are hugely aware of the issues between the club and the Trust. But what is so tiresome, is the incessant need to use any opportunity to suggest that any issue is indicative of the festering situation around the redevelopment. As I have said repeatedly, we are ALL graphically aware of the situation with the redevelopment, and the very staunch views of the Trust and a few others. But it is past embarrassing that everything leads to that and the agendas of a small few dirty the waters for all.   

'All of us are hugely aware of the issues between the club and the Trust'.
You see, you're the one that perpetuates that idea for me, as actually otherwise I'm not. I'm aware the club has issues with its own redevelopment but not it's relationship with a supporters body. It's you who tell me different. Until recently i went to the games and heard comment about the ground and very rarely the Trust but never in the same sentence, and I still read what I read on here. It's not the Trust reminding me either officially or via individual members speaking their own minds on here, and it's not the club reminding me of that, it's you Terry.
When they rode into town the present ownership lead many people, the press and supporters at the time, to believe they had certain amounts of money to spend and they were going to do certain things with the club. As far as I'm aware, at no point since then has it been the Trusts fault that these things haven't happened, lots of other reasons for the inertia and changes of plan have been offered by the club though, so once again, what makes you think the club has issues with the Trust? Tell me please.

'We are all graphically aware of the situation with the redevelopment and the very staunch views of the Trust and a few others'.
I'm not, I'm only aware that pretty much fcuk all has happened since the owners told us all what would be happening right at the start of their tenure. All I'm aware of is 'talks are progressing' yet nothing has actually happened. I'm thankful of the questioning posts of Vintage and the factual posts of GPC because they give me some perspective on why things MIGHT not have not gone anywhere. Perhaps I'm naive and I should have expected from the moment KT took control of the club that nothing was going to happen for 4(?) years, but I genuinely thought having seen the back of Cardoza we might at least see a little visible progress in that time.
And was that not also the view of the majority including yourself and the controlling officers of the Trust? What did you expect when you heard the tax bill was paid off and that some fella who used to be associated with Oxford and Torquay who talks himself up as a football man, having played at a reasonable level, was taking over the reins with a money man behind him. I seem to remember you being one of his greatest proponents especially since you had personally met both and seen the difference between him and Cordoza. So why now after all this time are you still seeking to root out those remarkably few dissident voice that raise their head above the parapet on here and question (and that's all it is btw, they question) if what we are being fed by our owners is correct?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

'All of us are hugely aware of the issues between the club and the Trust'.
You see, you're the one that perpetuates that idea for me, as actually otherwise I'm not. I'm aware the club has issues with its own redevelopment but not it's relationship with a supporters body. It's you who tell me different. Until recently i went to the games and heard comment about the ground and very rarely the Trust but never in the same sentence, and I still read what I read on here. It's not the Trust reminding me either officially or via individual members speaking their own minds on here, and it's not the club reminding me of that, it's you Terry.
When they rode into town the present ownership lead many people, the press and supporters at the time, to believe they had certain amounts of money to spend and they were going to do certain things with the club. As far as I'm aware, at no point since then has it been the Trusts fault that these things haven't happened, lots of other reasons for the inertia and changes of plan have been offered by the club though, so once again, what makes you think the club has issues with the Trust? Tell me please.

'We are all graphically aware of the situation with the redevelopment and the very staunch views of the Trust and a few others'.
I'm not, I'm only aware that pretty much fcuk all has happened since the owners told us all what would be happening right at the start of their tenure. All I'm aware of is 'talks are progressing' yet nothing has actually happened. I'm thankful of the questioning posts of Vintage and the factual posts of GPC because they give me some perspective on why things MIGHT not have not gone anywhere. Perhaps I'm naive and I should have expected from the moment KT took control of the club that nothing was going to happen for 4(?) years, but I genuinely thought having seen the back of Cardoza we might at least see a little visible progress in that time.
And was that not also the view of the majority including yourself and the controlling officers of the Trust? What did you expect when you heard the tax bill was paid off and that some fella who used to be associated with Oxford and Torquay who talks himself up as a football man, having played at a reasonable level, was taking over the reins with a money man behind him. I seem to remember you being one of his greatest proponents especially since you had personally met both and seen the difference between him and Cordoza. So why now after all this time are you still seeking to root out those remarkably few dissident voice that raise their head above the parapet on here and question (and that's all it is btw, they question) if what we are being fed by our owners is correct?

So you wouldn’t know anything if it wasn’t for little ol me...   

YEAH YEAH YEAH

[guest3338]

You certainly provide everyone with your opinion of there being angst between the Trust and the club,
again and again and again.
It's an issue which does seem to be of significant importance to you?