Fans Advisory Board: Minutes, Discussion etc ..

[Carton Lid]

Any actual evidence of this or is it more tin foil hat rambling?

Well the Trust were not allowed to be represented, evidence enough ?

[Shoemaker]

What did you expect.

The club explained their feelings towards the trust and their reasonings in a letter to the trust which the trust board decided not to publish although lots of people read it elsewhere.

If the trust decided to publish the clubs response it would surely add balance as to why the trust board was not invited.

They could have published it and asked their members for their opinions before writing a response on behalf of their paying membership.

That’s a fair point isn’t it?

[tcobb]

Come on Beds, lets have some proof of your accusations , that quite a serious statement you have made there, back it up with the proof. Please dont let this be another of your lies.

[singcobb]

The best thing to do is to ignore Beds and ignore anyone connected with the toxic trust.

[F30]

I renewed my trust membership, still not sure why 

[tcobb]

Well they've got your money , so they won't need to hear from you for another year 

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Well the Trust were not allowed to be represented, evidence enough ?

I don't remember that bit?
Wasn't it The Trust who decided not to put anyone up for election?

[RChurch]

The Trust chose not to stand, they were not denied the opportunity at all

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/trust-welcomes-fan-director-election

[Melbourne Cobbler]

The Trust chose not to stand, they were not denied the opportunity at all

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/trust-welcomes-fan-director-election

Is it me or is there a policy of reinventing history that used to be optional but is now mandatory?

[F30]

Well they've got your money , so they won't need to hear from you for another year 

I’ve got a PayPal receipt 😂

[Carton Lid]

The Trust chose not to stand, they were not denied the opportunity at all

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/trust-welcomes-fan-director-election

Sorry but that is a totally different thing. The original post was about the Fans Advisory board, you have post about the fans elected director. The Trust were definitely not invited to the fans advisory board, I still wonder why NTFC  are so worried about ONE person attending from a group that they need to ban them ? It's highly unlikely that one person would have a chance to change anything, so why the ban, what are they worried about?
   tcobb asks  for proof, I have an email stating that the board of NTFC decided not to invite the Trust, so I CAN prove that to be the case.

[BackOfTheNet]

And to think the detractors could have put their names forward when Tom and Dan did, but no, they’d rather post their monotonous diatribes on here. Fools on the hill!

Roger - Beds' comment was in relation to this, so while the thread is about the FAB the particular line of conversation was about the fans' rep role.

I don't think anyone disputes that the club said the Trust weren't allowed on the FAB and they've been very clear on why that is.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Sorry but that is a totally different thing. The original post was about the Fans Advisory board, you have post about the fans elected director. The Trust were definitely not invited to the fans advisory board, I still wonder why NTFC  are so worried about ONE person attending from a group that they need to ban them ? It's highly unlikely that one person would have a chance to change anything, so why the ban, what are they worried about?
   tcobb asks  for proof, I have an email stating that the board of NTFC decided not to invite the Trust, so I CAN prove that to be the case.

TBF I thought this was all a response to the post from Beds about fan representation on the board? On a seperate note if I engaged with a customer, partner organisation or any individual or group of that nature, and I felt they had subsequently covertly become or had even attempted to become a competitor and believed they had cost me money, they wouldn’t get across my threshold again. I don’t understand why this seems to be a problem, if the shoe was on the other foot many who felt this had been done to them would respond similarly. That was always the risk and it should have been glaringly obvious. If a body makes that decision and embarks on that process then fair enough, but don’t complain when you face the full brunt of the consequences. I’d be really interested to understand what people who don’t accept this position on the part of the owners feel what a reasonable reaction would be? Is the expectation really to continue to take advice, instruction and/or demands from such a group or individuals and let bygones be bygones without care or consequence ? If so they are a lot more tolerant than me, and probably most.

[F30]

The trust is special and different and beyond reproach, haven't people realised that yet?

[Observing]

I’d guess it’s because the club don’t want anything to do with the trust due to previous actions, just a guess of course.

Who could blame them if we are honest.

[A view from afar]

The trust is special and different and beyond reproach, haven't people realised that yet?

Teflon…… where nothing sticks apparently👍

[Tom]

Sorry but that is a totally different thing. The original post was about the Fans Advisory board, you have post about the fans elected director. The Trust were definitely not invited to the fans advisory board, I still wonder why NTFC  are so worried about ONE person attending from a group that they need to ban them ? It's highly unlikely that one person would have a chance to change anything, so why the ban, what are they worried about?
   tcobb asks  for proof, I have an email stating that the board of NTFC decided not to invite the Trust, so I CAN prove that to be the case.

He asked for proof of not being allowed to stand as the fans elected director, why are you offering evidence for something totally separate?

[Carton Lid]

He asked for proof of not being allowed to stand as the fans elected director, why are you offering evidence for something totally separate?

The name of the thread is "Fans advisory board", I'm offering evidence on the subject of the thread.

[Tom]

The name of the thread is "Fans advisory board", I'm offering evidence on the subject of the thread.

So you're ignoring the context of the active part of the discussion (despite quoting it) and just dropping in whatever you fancy because it matches the title of the thread....you know that is completely ridiculous right?


You can just say you got confused, because now you just look like it's deliberately misleading or malicious.

[Shoemaker]

The name of the thread is "Fans advisory board", I'm offering evidence on the subject of the thread.

For goodness sake
Everybody knows why the trust were not invited onto the fans board.
The reasons were written in a letter that the club gave the trust permission to publish.
The trust did not publish it (even paying members were not allowed to see a letter from the football club )!!!
When arguing why the trust were not invited this crucial document that answers the question seems to have been airbrushed from history.
This is why I find Roger’s answers on the subject quite bizarre.
Can you confirm that you know of this letter and its contents roger.
Let’s play it straight down the middle.