Trust Board response to letter sent by the club.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Thanks for the reply Michael. Whilst it most definitely wasn’t a sole NTFCST proposal, it most certainly was a NTFCST led proposal, and presumably their supporting reasoning would have been submitted by it and a consideration. Personally I think it’s important to understand why the FSA have taken that decision. Until the reasons anre understood it is difficult to draw any conclusions or form any compelling opinions.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Melly I think most of us know that  this and indeed the earlier threat of legal action were not only unrealistic but also professionally embarrassing and actions I would describe as nasty bullying - and certainly  those on the board who endorsed those threats  should be ashamed - however moving forwrd give Michael a break - yes he knows what a large percentage of disaffected Trust members would like to see happen but it's really not in his power to action that (even if he thinks the same - and of course he may not) - he is trying to change attitudes from within and in certain areas I think he has made progress but wholesale changes (and restoration of any relationship with the club) will only happen via the democratic process of sufficient individual proposing themselves and being elected to the board - until then, and it's likely to be a long time, baby steps.

TBF given Michael’s more moderate approach, the fact he is willing to engage on here and it light of the upcoming discussion on engagement I would rather arm him with as much perspective as possible. He has complete control over what to do with it, if anything.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

It was a very modest motion - requiring FABs to include Supporter Trusts, and I can't see why they objected to it.

Not withstanding some people's views on here about the Trust, I'm sure the vast majority of supporters would support this principle.

We'd all happily have the Trust on the FAB board. Just not some of the current toxic crop. I’d imagine most other Trusts enjoy a better relationship with the support. And haven’t threatened to sue them 😂😂 Would they let you be their FAB representative Michael?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

as a life member

Well done hanging on to that. My views cost me mine..

[Ragdoll Cobbler]

Email just received...

Basically, just more feet stamping with no signs of any resignations or accountability for their previous actions...

Dear Trust member,

Please find below the latest update on the Football Governance Bill as it moves through Parliament.

It will almost certainly now be left to the new Independent Football Regulator to guarantee the presence of Supporters Trusts and other democratically-constituted supporter groups on the fan engagement body of their respective clubs.


----------


The Football Governance committee sessions closed last week ahead of schedule.

Our submission, as the original Supporters’ Trust and also on behalf of 22 others at all levels of the game, sought primacy for Trusts in the forthcoming legislation and was tabled at the committee on 10 June.

It was presented alongside a submission from the Football Supporters' Association but both submissions were not discussed by MPs.

The committee will now write a report for the House of Commons and then, following a third reading, the Football Governance Bill is likely to receive Royal Assent next month.

While it is disappointing to get that far and then not get a hearing, the Government made it clear in recent months that it was not minded to countenance any amendments so the outcome was pretty much in line with our expectations.

It now seems likely that ‘light touch’ fan engagement will be in the discretionary gift of the newly-appointed Independent Football Regulator.

The FSA insists that Trusts will remain at the heart of fan engagement panels or boards at their football clubs.

Indeed, the FSA’s constitution provides as one of its primary objects that it shall 'support and protect the interests of member Supporters’ Trusts.' 

The Trusts First coalition will be holding the FSA to account to honour its underlying obligation.

Accordingly, we would expect the fan engagement body at any club to be democratically constituted with all members elected.

And in the interests of accountability and transparency, all fan engagement meetings should have an open agenda (one which is not dictated by the club or any club director or appointee), all meetings should be minuted and reports of meetings should be published.

At the turn of the Millennium, the late Brian Lomax - through what was then Supporters Direct - fought so hard for supporters to have a representative and meaningful voice within their clubs.

We hope that this important reforming Bill honours his legacy and does not squander it.

[Tom]

As with Melly above, I am Pro Trust but anti current Trust board / advisor. It is this lived experience over the last few years why I don't support the proposal and I am please the vast majority rejected it. The Trust should have to earn the right to have an involvement just like every other member. I would like them to be invited but fully understand why they are not.

The mere fact that the Trust are having to get it enshrined in law for them to be invited should ring alarm bells with their current plight.

+1

I don't think Trusts (or any other organisation) should automatically get a foot in the door, just because they want it - how our board and it's advisor have behaved in both words and action should be enough reason to cause pause for thought on that motion and I'm glad it was shot down.

Our trust is a shining example of everything a trust should not be, and how it's capable of being hijacked by a small group of individuals with their own agenda of misery and hatred.

[Tom]

And in the interests of accountability and transparency, all fan engagement meetings should have an open agenda (one which is not dictated by the club or any club director or appointee), all meetings should be minuted and reports of meetings should be published.

Perhaps before stomping their feet like petulant children they should get their own house in order, minutes are currently months behind, vague at best...and how about the minutes to those secretive meetings with Cilldara?

[Tabasco Kid]

Well done hanging on to that. My views cost me mine..

Are you saying that for voicing your opinion, your lifetime membership was revoked? If so, thats a new low.

[Observing]

I think most sane people are pro Trust but anti the current cretinous crew.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Well done hanging on to that. My views cost me mine..

If you’re a life member you’re a life member. I wouldn’t care less if the current controlling influence decided otherwise. I would expect yours and anyone else’s to be reinstated at some point if it was for communicating a point of view. That decision is in contradiction to everything a Trust stands for. Members with an alternative view living in fear of expulsion, what kind of reasonable precedent is that?

[JSO]

Why are the rust so worried about the FAB? From what I've heard it's not a members club, just a voice from a diverse range of the fanbase, hence why there is not a need for minutes. However Tom Cliffe does go through what was discussed in the meeting for all to hear, often the next day.

[TVOR]

The Trusts First coalition will be holding the FSA to account to honour its underlying obligation.

- To be open, democratic and inclusive in considering the needs and ideas of supporters
- To promote and strengthen the bonds between NTFC, its supporters and the wider community
- To safeguard a professional Football League club in Northampton

I'm going to say 0/3 with the current lot.
To counter the argument of they have saved the club twice, I'm not going to disagree, but becoming a rival bidder un did that. Hopefully in the future, with a new board and advisement they can get back to 3/3 where they have been previously.

[Omega]

The trust that “saved” the club was a completely different animal than the current embodiment- I’m sure Roger of others can confirm actual names that were there than and still remain but certainly I know some who are now very critical of the current set up - using “we saved the club” is a bit like MK Dons claiming an FA cup win!

[Michael Walker]

We'd all happily have the Trust on the FAB board. Just not some of the current toxic crop. I’d imagine most other Trusts enjoy a better relationship with the support. And haven’t threatened to sue them 😂😂 Would they let you be their FAB representative Michael?

I've tried to take out the personalities from the process from the start of my commentary on here, beyond saying passionately(!) that I strongly believe that all conversations should be respectful and polite.

I've never had time for people who use either their verbal, written or financial 'power' to 'win' arguments or shut down debates..

In the case of the Trust, club, owners, supporters et al, we are all supporters of the Cobblers. It's not the Israeli/Gaza dispute and there's no need to carry on like it is!

I've said from the start I'm not going to comment on events prior to February 2025 as I wasn't involved and I don't know the precise background to much of what went on.

I'm hopeful that over time the Trust can play an important role in the future of the club along the lines of its own mission statement.

 I'm not blind to the comments on here, but all I can say to everyone is get involved. Try it. What's the worse that can happen? Re-join if you're not a member. Come to meetings via Zoom. Tell us what you think?

I have found almost everybody - from Kelvin, to staff members, toTrust directors, to people on here, to supporters who've messaged me privately, to be open, honest and keen to see the Cobblers doing well.

We are a small club with limited resources - but that doesn't mean we can't dream and plan to do better. As Bill Nicholson once said 'it's about glory'. I'd like to see more glory and less argy bargy.

[TVOR]

I admire your optimism and generally agree with keeping personalities out of it. The problem is the personalities are what have got us to this position.
You mention Israel Gaza, can you see Netanyahu and Khaled Marshal sitting down for a cup of tea and letting bygones be bygones, or do you think it will take a change of leadership and a change of approach?


(not comparing either the Trust of the Club to either of them, just running with the analogy)

[Michael Walker]

I admire your optimism and generally agree with keeping personalities out of it. The problem is the personalities are what have got us to this position.
You mention Israel Gaza, can you see Netanyahu and Khaled Marshal sitting down for a cup of tea and letting bygones be bygones, or do you think it will take a change of leadership and a change of approach?


(not comparing either the Trust of the Club to either of them, just running with the analogy)

Good knowledge of Hamas, I had to look up KM. I don't see it as a two dimensional issue - I think it's about a five way dynamic including WNC, supporters, the Trust, Trust members, other supporters and the broader football eco-spehere.

I don't think it was just personalities that has got us to this position - the history of the club is also to account for where we are. NBC tried to 'do the right thing' and then it hideously backfires and we end up a laughing stock...

I don't think it's going to be easy to get to a better place around but what are the alternatives?

In any case, it doesn't really matter until it matters greatly!

For what it's worth - I have a view that with a better relationship between the club, the Trust, supporters and WNC, that we can achieve something quite magical in the future with goodwill all round, imagination and some serious drive and determination.

At the moment the 'bad will' (for want of a better term' makes this impossible.

[TVOR]

I don't think it's going to be easy to get to a better place around but what are the alternatives?

For the current board (not including recent additions) and advisors to stand a side and let a new board come in and start to rebuild the relationships, firstly with the fans and then the club. I am sure that there are enough people to join and stand once the current regime leaves.

I don't doubt the current board have acted in ways that they felt were right for the club, and are all passionate supporters of the club, but they need to realise they have failed, and continue to fail and the only people losing out are the fans.

[Horsham Cobbler]

For the current board (not including recent additions) and advisors to stand a side and let a new board come in and start to rebuild the relationships, firstly with the fans and then the club. I am sure that there are enough people to join and stand once the current regime leaves.

I don't doubt the current board have acted in ways that they felt were right for the club, and are all passionate supporters of the club, but they need to realise they have failed, and continue to fail and the only people losing out are the fans.

That's it. In a nutshell.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

The round up notes of the FSA AGM are found here, with motion 3 being the NTFCST led motion.

https://thefsa.org.uk/news/round-up-fsa-agm-2025/

The result of the vote is, Motion failed with 84 votes in favour and 240 against.

Obviously a bit of a landslide and I would have assumed it would have been closer given the fact it is a supporters organisation. More to come I would imagine.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Are you saying that for voicing your opinion, your lifetime membership was revoked? If so, thats a new low.

I’m saying. I was a lifetime member. Apparently I’m not now. Whether it is deliberate or not, I can’t say. Whilst I believe I should not have to rejoin. I would do so in a heartbeat, if the board members who should resign, did so.

I was a board member. I 100% left on good terms. As a life member..