Trust Board response to letter sent by the club.

[Manwork04]

That's a very blinkered view, so according to you, the Trust today is the same as when Brian Lomax started it in 1992 or the Trust that played a large part in saving the club in 2015 ?
 Similar to comparing Trumps government with Obama's, they were both the government of the USA. No organisation with elected members always stays the same

Indeed Obama was a complete waste of space that did nothing, whereas Trump is making America Great Again FACT.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

That's a very blinkered view, so according to you, the Trust today is the same as when Brian Lomax started it in 1992 or the Trust that played a large part in saving the club in 2015 ?
 

I thought it only gave some money for staff wages. Money that was donated from other clubs..

[Carton Lid]

I thought it only gave some money for staff wages. Money that was donated from other clubs..

No that is incorrect

[Michael Walker]

Michael, I have absolutely no axe to grind with you. But the key to any resurgence, or acceptance of the Trust back into the arms of the club, and indeed significant sections of the support base, has to be the resignations of those that acted in accordance with their own agenda, rather than with endorsement from their members. And it appears, seem willing to continue in the same vein, even after their main raison d'etre has been proven wrong. I wish it was as simple as holding out the olive branch. And it could be. Were it not for the presence of those that destroyed our Trust.

I understand that this is a common point of view on here from most posters - but not having been in the heart of the battle when it was raging I can't comment on it.

My general point is that with the completion of the East Stand and the arrival of NLQ (and indeed the creation of the FAB) is for people to think about what role that the Supporters Trust should play in the future and the type of relationship it should have with its members, the broader supporter base and the club and it's owners?

To me, the answer is quite simple: it should be an organisation that acts as a careful observer of all events around the  club, making reasoned and objective comments where necessary in the pursuit of the club continuing to thrive for another 100 years.

It should have a mutually respectful relationship with the owners and the club, where each understands the role and constraints of the other.

And it should act as a 'bridge' between the Supporters and club to help explain the issues that matter and concern them.

A good example of this could be to explain, in simple to understand language, the finances of the club and how it's constrained by financial fair play from going out and signing a £10,000 a week striker.

Now the current relationship is a million miles from this - personally I find the aggressive nonsense all round to be tedious,  pointless and utterly lacking in perspective and humourless.

The Cobblers are important but not that important.

As I said, it's about respect and how that is given and received. It's a very simple concept.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

I understand that this is a common point of view on here from most posters - but not having been in the heart of the battle when it was raging I can't comment on it.

My general point is that with the completion of the East Stand and the arrival of NLQ (and indeed the creation of the FAB) is for people to think about what role that the Supporters Trust should play in the future and the type of relationship it should have with its members, the broader supporter base and the club and it's owners?

To me, the answer is quite simple: it should be an organisation that acts as a careful observer of all events around the  club, making reasoned and objective comments where necessary in the pursuit of the club continuing to thrive for another 100 years.

It should have a mutually respectful relationship with the owners and the club, where each understands the role and constraints of the other.

And it should act as a 'bridge' between the Supporters and club to help explain the issues that matter and concern them.

A good example of this could be to explain, in simple to understand language, the finances of the club and how it's constrained by financial fair play from going out and signing a £10,000 a week striker.

Now the current relationship is a million miles from this - personally I find the aggressive nonsense all round to be tedious,  pointless and utterly lacking in perspective and humourless.

The Cobblers are important but not that important.

As I said, it's about respect and how that is given and received. It's a very simple concept.

I absolutely appreciate what you are saying. And I certainly don't disagree with your, or indeed all of our vision for a productive three way relationship between the Trust, the support and the club. I just don't agree with relationship working with the inclusion of those that did what they did.

Also, I would appreciate it id you could cease from stating "I understand that this is a common point of view on here from most posters". I see an equal degree of disdain on other media platforms for the actions of the Trust.

[West Stand]

Kings Cross/St Pancras. Olympic Village. Canary Wharf. Even arguably the Market Square (although still stuff to do.) The Elizabeth Line.

The UK can get it right, as spectacularly as anywhere else in the world. It's just s*** strategic management that fails to deliver. The tragedy is that the loan & vision that Simon set out has been lost to the Cobblers forever..

I'd still like The Carlsberg Community Stadium built on the site of Greyfriars..but it would be a brave councillor to say to his group 'I've got a great idea, let's build a 25,000 seater stadium in the heart of the town, funded by debt'..

Park and ride on the land behind the East Stand to this new stadium rather than Warehousing. Everyone wins

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

No that is incorrect

What is. That it gave money that was covered by donations from other clubs. Or that I have missed something else. I'm honestly intrigued what was the large part the Trust played in saving the club in 2015.. Genuinely interested. No baiting whatsoever. I can only remember the money.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

That’s Melly for you, always misgendering, the bitch.

Watch it love!

[Melbourne Cobbler]

We can do all the pontificating going, and stipulate what should and shouldn’t happen but it’s all pointless. The only way the Trust will have any meaningful purpose in the short term as a minimum is when and if the owners decide to engage with them again. They hold all the cards and they have made their feelings most clear on this subject. So whilst this may be an interesting point of debate, it’s unlikely to be anymore than that unless there is a wholesale change of leadership and advice being offered within the corridors of power in our Trust. Like it or lump it.  As for the latest glimmer of hope which Trusts are trying to wrap up in the new legislation, you can lead a horse to water and all that.

[F30]

🤐🤐🤐

[Melbourne Cobbler]

🤐🤐🤐

😂

[BackOfTheNet]

I understand that this is a common point of view on here from most posters - but not having been in the heart of the battle when it was raging I can't comment on it.

My general point is that with the completion of the East Stand and the arrival of NLQ (and indeed the creation of the FAB) is for people to think about what role that the Supporters Trust should play in the future and the type of relationship it should have with its members, the broader supporter base and the club and it's owners?

To me, the answer is quite simple: it should be an organisation that acts as a careful observer of all events around the  club, making reasoned and objective comments where necessary in the pursuit of the club continuing to thrive for another 100 years.

It should have a mutually respectful relationship with the owners and the club, where each understands the role and constraints of the other.

And it should act as a 'bridge' between the Supporters and club to help explain the issues that matter and concern them.

A good example of this could be to explain, in simple to understand language, the finances of the club and how it's constrained by financial fair play from going out and signing a £10,000 a week striker.

Now the current relationship is a million miles from this - personally I find the aggressive nonsense all round to be tedious,  pointless and utterly lacking in perspective and humourless.

The Cobblers are important but not that important.

As I said, it's about respect and how that is given and received. It's a very simple concept.

I think most of us share your vision, Michael, but none of it is going to happen until there's a change of personnel at the top of the Trust (and I appreciate you are doing your bit on that front).

The current situation is like someone getting drunk and groping your fiancée at your engagement party and then being put out at not getting an invitation to the wedding.

[tcobb]

I think you are starting to see a trend now Michael. The relationship with the Trust could possibly  be restored, but not without big changes in the leadership at the Trust. Until that happens a lot of the fan base will remain opposed to the Trust, but not what it could offer if run correctly.

[Michael Walker]

This is a very interesting interview with the CEO of Shrewsbury on the financial challenges that they face. He says that this season, across League 1, revenues are up 20% and players wages are up 50%.

This is probably much the same for the Cobblers, remembering that the accounts due to come out by the end of March, will be for last season.

There will be new financial regulations for League 1, but it shows the challenge of building a financially sustainable club and a successful football club.

I believe that in James Whiting we have an exceptional CEO but he must find running the club a tortuous challenge at the best of times.

https://youtu.be/_7SQs5KJZQY?si=Se5JMDIhTDQ3kBaF

[Michael Walker]

I think you are starting to see a trend now Michael. The relationship with the Trust could possibly  be restored, but not without big changes in the leadership at the Trust. Until that happens a lot of the fan base will remain opposed to the Trust, but not what it could offer if run correctly.

As a general point, it's good leadership for any organisation,  public or private, large or small, to reflect on its relationship with its environment to see whether it's succeeding in it's mission which is often essential if it's a private company to keep making profits etc. And for voluntary bodies to assess how it's doing in it's purpose.

In the Trusts case, it might argue that no has tried to effect change from within, apart from 3 people who left quite quickly, so perhaps the 'silent majority ' of Trust members is happy with it. Although I recognise that they collectively felt isolated and marginalised.

On the other hand, it would have to be particularly cloth eared not to hear the comments on here and elsewhere.

It's obvious, well at least to me!, that there needs to be a dialogue between the Trust directors and it's members about what they expect of the Trust in the future and how it should communicate with them, the broader supporter base and the club.

It has a FB page, an X account and a website. These could play a role in this consultation?

One of the things that I'd like the Trust to do is to initiate this conversation. I'd be interested in knowing other people's ideas on how this could be done, over and above 'RESIGN'.

A meeting in town for Trust members, chaired by a neutral chair? Andy Roberts is a very good chair, but I'm sure he'd understand that a 'neutral' chair might let disaffected members speak with greater confidence.

I recognise that a more widely respected Supporters Trust with a good relationship with the club is only of marginal interest compared to 3pts and staying up, but I still think its worth looking to see if it can be achieved..

[Tom]

As a general point, it's good leadership for any organisation,  public or private, large or small, to reflect on its relationship with its environment to see whether it's succeeding in it's mission which is often essential if it's a private company to keep making profits etc. And for voluntary bodies to assess how it's doing in it's purpose.

In the Trusts case, it might argue that no has tried to effect change from within, apart from 3 people who left quite quickly, so perhaps the 'silent majority ' of Trust members is happy with it. Although I recognise that they collectively felt isolated and marginalised.

On the other hand, it would have to be particularly cloth eared not to hear the comments on here and elsewhere.

It's obvious, well at least to me!, that there needs to be a dialogue between the Trust directors and it's members about what they expect of the Trust in the future and how it should communicate with them, the broader supporter base and the club.

It has a FB page, an X account and a website. These could play a role in this consultation?

One of the things that I'd like the Trust to do is to initiate this conversation. I'd be interested in knowing other people's ideas on how this could be done, over and above 'RESIGN'.

A meeting in town for Trust members, chaired by a neutral chair?

I recognise that a more widely respected Supporters Trust with a good relationship with the club is only of marginal interest compared to 3pts and staying up, but I still think its worth looking to see if it can be achieved..

The club have made it clear there unless there is a change of the board there is no relationship, read the letter that was sent to the trust board.

Very little point in debating it beyond that, it's pretty clear cut.

As for "the 3" leaving quite quickly, think you'll find it was more than 3 that left in a short time and all for the same reasons - but you'll be guided by certain people you are now associated with to think of it as those 3 due to "those 3" having been involved in a petition calling for the resignation of the trust board and it's "advisor", which was, and still would be the best course of action.

[Carton Lid]

What is. That it gave money that was covered by donations from other clubs. Or that I have missed something else. I'm honestly intrigued what was the large part the Trust played in saving the club in 2015.. Genuinely interested. No baiting whatsoever. I can only remember the money.

If you want to meet up sometime Nigel, I'll give you the FULL story.
 

[Zen Master]

Spill

[Melbourne Cobbler]

As a general point, it's good leadership for any organisation,  public or private, large or small, to reflect on its relationship with its environment to see whether it's succeeding in it's mission which is often essential if it's a private company to keep making profits etc. And for voluntary bodies to assess how it's doing in it's purpose.

In the Trusts case, it might argue that no has tried to effect change from within, apart from 3 people who left quite quickly,

Its a controversial point Michael. If you get new blood onboard, and the new people subsequently try to instigate change, raise concerns and feel they need to resign as a result of the reaction, particularly in the manner they claim (and not without evidence) then should the current Trust Board be arguing at all? Personally I would recognise that there is an obvious fundamental issue with the organisation that I control, that is supposedly representative of all the members and their views, that has issues that keep reappearing entirely too often. My view is that the majority influence pertaining to the board decided upon its position and desired outcome long ago, and sold its soul to get it. As a result it is a body that has marginalised itself to the point, where it has zero influence over the club and the direction it takes on behalf of its members. It can continue in its current guise and remain irrelevant or take drastic action, perhaps led by yourself, to bring itself back from the abyss. The board may gain a level of satisfaction by winning repeated skirmishes with a section of its membership, who are more moderate towards the club and its ownership. But they are blind to the fact that they lost the war a long time ago. It should be self evident they will not resurrect themselves without considerable appeasement unless there is a change of ownership, and even that may not be enough dependant on who takes over.

I wish you the best of luck Michael, at this point you appear to be exactly what the Board needs. Whether your more moderate approach is what it wants and is prepared to tolerate is an entirely different matter.

[DavCobb]

In the Trusts case, it might argue that no has tried to effect change from within, apart from 3 people who left quite quickly, so perhaps the 'silent majority ' of Trust members is happy with it. Although I recognise that they collectively felt isolated and marginalised.

On the other hand, it would have to be particularly cloth eared not to hear the comments on here and elsewhere.

However many people join/leave the Trust board in a short window it is a bit of a waste of (their) time. I think everyone's eyes are wide open of what they are signing up for.
Change can absolutely be made from within but it needs people with resilience, consultation/negotiation skills and no doubt a thick skin. With all due respect a League 1 fans forum it is hardly negotiating for peace in Israel.

If it is now really a case that it is a waste of time until either the owners of the club/board of the Trust (either/or/both) move on, then mothball the whole thing until that happens, although some of the bickering is entertaining.