Trust Board response to letter sent by the club.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

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.

I totally agree about maintaining decorum. You will struggle to find an insult that I have laid at the door of Trust board members. You’ll find it a lot easier the other way round.

I am interested in one thing. Seeing a productive, EARNEST, engaging Trust. Acting in the interest of both the support and the club. That can never happen with some of the current crop. When I was on the Trust board. Had you suggested to me, that I was an obstacle to progress and co-operation between the Trust and the board. I wouldn’t have needed telling twice.

I would really like to see something, just as an exercise. Get the obvious culprits to stand down for six months. If during that time, engagement with the club and the support doesn’t improve, they can automatically come back. If it does improve significantly, then they should resign with immediate effect.

[Tabasco Kid]

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..

Wow. And that in a nutshell shows just how much the current board care about their members and opinions.
Iwould say that they cannot sink any lower, but quite frankly nothing surprises me anymore.

PS, would you regard this forum as your "playground"? 

[Worthless Recluse]

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..

Why are you apparently not now? What is it that makes you think this is the case? Are you referring to a lack of communication from the board to yourself, or is it something more substantive?
Lots of questions. I'm intrigued.

[Tabasco Kid]

Why are you apparently not now? What is it that makes you think this is the case? Are you referring to a lack of communication from the board to yourself, or is it something more substantive?
Lots of questions. I'm intrigued.

I would suggest struck off of the Email list. Perhaps the Hamster could confirm / deny this? Either way it should get us a mention on Tw@tter. Again.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Why are you apparently not now? What is it that makes you think this is the case? Are you referring to a lack of communication from the board to yourself, or is it something more substantive?
Lots of questions. I'm intrigued.

Michael kindly looked into it for me..

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

I would suggest struck off of the Email list. Perhaps the Hamster could confirm / deny this? Either way it should get us a mention on Tw@tter. Again.

I'm not too sure on the email thing. My original email address with the Trust, is no longer in use. But that has been the case for some years. I thought I had given them updated info some years back. But not sure. All joking aside. I cannot say that anything malicious has been done. But I definitely paid for a lifetime membership at some point.

[A view from afar]

+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.

Totally agree Tom.
He still threatens when comments are made in his public social media.
He doesn't like anyone to disagree.... It's almost like the Labour party 😂

[A view from afar]

Totally agree Tom.
He still threatens when comments are made on his public social media.
I guarantee he'll quote "thick people" on here when he sees this 😂
He doesn't like anyone to disagree.... It's almost like the Labour party 😂

[BackOfTheNet]

They are using the Trusts First movement to try and elbow their way back into a seat at the table.  I've emailed both the department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport and the minister responsible for it to outline the background and explain why I don't believe our Trust as it stands should be allowed anywhere near the running of the club, and how the democratically elected fan's rep and the FAB should be allowed to fill this important role.

It probably wouldn't hurt if a few others did the same.

I got a lovely reply back from that there government today so thought I'd share it with you.

Thank you for your correspondence of 11 June, to the Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and
Youth, Stephanie Peacock MP, about the ‘Trusts First’ campaign concerning the Football Governance
Bill. I am replying as a member of the Ministerial Support Team.
The Football Governance Bill will create a new Independent Football Regulator (IFR), which will enforce
new standards for fan engagement in decision-making, guaranteeing fans an effective voice in the key
issues that have an impact on them. The government appreciates that there may be some instances
where fans do not feel they are represented by their club’s supporters’ trust. That is why the bill takes
an approach that will allow for flexibility and does not specify a set form or process for engaging with
fans. As such, it does not give supporters trusts any formal primacy over any other sort of fan group.
Under the measures in the bill, clubs will be required to have an appropriate framework in place that
allows them to regularly meet and consult fans on key strategic matters and supporter interests. Where
fans feel represented and the consultation is already working, clubs are unlikely to need to make any
changes. However, if the IFR feels clubs are not engaging with a representative group of fans, then it
will be able to take action to rectify this issue.
I hope this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Ministerial Support Team

A nice, clear, clean cut response it was too.

[Ecliptic]

Succinct! 😊

[Carton Lid]

Thank you for your correspondence of 11 June, to the Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and
Youth, Stephanie Peacock MP, about the ‘Trusts First’ campaign concerning the Football Governance
Bill. I am replying as a member of the Ministerial Support Team.
The Football Governance Bill will create a new Independent Football Regulator (IFR), which will enforce
new standards for fan engagement in decision-making, guaranteeing fans an effective voice in the key
issues that have an impact on them. The government appreciates that there may be some instances
where fans do not feel they are represented by their club’s supporters’ trust. That is why the bill takes
an approach that will allow for flexibility and does not specify a set form or process for engaging with
fans. As such, it does not give supporters trusts any formal primacy over any other sort of fan group.
Under the measures in the bill, clubs will be required to have an appropriate framework in place that
allows them to regularly meet and consult fans on key strategic matters and supporter interests. Where
fans feel represented and the consultation is already working, clubs are unlikely to need to make any
changes. However, if the IFR feels clubs are not engaging with a representative group of fans, then it
will be able to take action to rectify this issue.
I hope this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Ministerial Support Team

 Reading that I'm assuming that the Trust have a case for action as they are/were excluded from the FAB ?

[Ecliptic]

If the IFR feels!

[claretparrot]

Thank you for your correspondence of 11 June, to the Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and
Youth, Stephanie Peacock MP, about the ‘Trusts First’ campaign concerning the Football Governance
Bill. I am replying as a member of the Ministerial Support Team.
The Football Governance Bill will create a new Independent Football Regulator (IFR), which will enforce
new standards for fan engagement in decision-making, guaranteeing fans an effective voice in the key
issues that have an impact on them. The government appreciates that there may be some instances
where fans do not feel they are represented by their club’s supporters’ trust. That is why the bill takes
an approach that will allow for flexibility and does not specify a set form or process for engaging with
fans. As such, it does not give supporters trusts any formal primacy over any other sort of fan group.
Under the measures in the bill, clubs will be required to have an appropriate framework in place that
allows them to regularly meet and consult fans on key strategic matters and supporter interests. Where
fans feel represented and the consultation is already working, clubs are unlikely to need to make any
changes. However, if the IFR feels clubs are not engaging with a representative group of fans, then it
will be able to take action to rectify this issue.
I hope this information is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Ministerial Support Team

 Reading that I'm assuming that the Trust have a case for action as they are/were excluded from the FAB ?

I think that's a question of interpretation, and I'd interpret it differently to how it seems you have. Under your interpretation an unlimited number of fan groups could demand a seat at the table as long as they are representative?

You're also making the leap that the Trust are representative, a theory that has been long disproved I think!

[BackOfTheNet]

Yeah, my interpretation is that the club need to engage with a representative group of fans. The FAB is a representative group of fans, isn't it?

[Carton Lid]

Yeah, my interpretation is that the club need to engage with a representative group of fans. The FAB is a representative group of fans, isn't it?

No more so than the Trust, if you want to use that wording to block the Trust it can be used in exactly the same way to block the FAB. So is that your view of how things should be done? Speak to only the fans who agree with your thoughts?
All fans groups should be represented, if one group proposes something that's rubbish, it wouldn't get through would it ?

[Tabasco Kid]

No more so than the Trust, if you want to use that wording to block the Trust it can be used in exactly the same way to block the FAB. So is that your view of how things should be done? Speak to only the fans who agree with your thoughts?
All fans groups should be represented, if one group proposes something that's rubbish, it wouldn't get through would it ?

Good grief. Maybe one day the penny will drop.

[Ecliptic]

I feel for the trust board, thwarted once more in their bid for primacy.

[claretparrot]

No more so than the Trust, if you want to use that wording to block the Trust it can be used in exactly the same way to block the FAB. So is that your view of how things should be done? Speak to only the fans who agree with your thoughts?
All fans groups should be represented, if one group proposes something that's rubbish, it wouldn't get through would it ?

For all I know Carton you're interpreting it correctly, but if so that 'policy' will be an absolute disaster in practice. Unlimited number of groups with a right to be heard. Struggle to believe that's the intention.

[Carton Lid]

Good grief. Maybe one day the penny will drop.

I'm just wondering if you will ever see the irony in what you posted. You are saying it's OK to only speak to one group of supporters , as long as they are the group you favour. What would be your reaction if the IFR said "We are only going to talk to the Trust as they are the only independent supporters group"
  You can't have it both ways 

[Melbourne Cobbler]

All a bit irrelevant. If an approach is made to the IFR by the Board then at that point it is self evident that representations will be made by all the interested parties. Whilst I’m sure the Trust Board would take advantage of this provision, I think it’s also self evident that there would be a significant amount of representation from members/former members coming back the other way. This would highlight issues around the governance of the Trust including but not limited to transparency, accountability and the ethics around the relationship with Cilldara. Board conduct, influence of non Board members and inappropriate and or insufficient engagement with members. At which time the Trust Board will be given the opportunity to provide evidence to defend and clearly justify the actions and conduct of its Board members and representatives.

On that basis I personally think this could be the best thing to happen to our Trust in years and a real chance to address all matters that have affected it. I suspect there will be very robust and enthusiastic representations from a considerable number of parties and individuals.

As stated it’s all about interpretation, but I feel this could be a magnificent opportunity to resolve all of these matters that have caused such bitterness in the most appropriate of environments,
perhaps resulting in a Trust everyone wants. Personally Im delighted that we can possibly finally all agree on something and should all welcome this turn of events with open arms. However given the highly emotive nature of this matter where all parties clearly and passionately believe they have been wronged, expect a challenging and uncomfortable ride for some, but hopefully it will be eventually worth the effort.