Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Vintage Cobbler]

Let me offer an alternative point of view and these are my views alone.

If you think KT will stop talking to NBC and pushing for what he wants because of the coronavirus situation, then I would say please think again.  I think the Trust’s statement was a response it considered necessary to last week’s Council meeting and the critical comments of 2 senior Tories about our owners in response to the LIbDems Leader’s question as to what is going on. This was  quickly followed by KT’s riposte on the club’s website.  The health crisis was in full swing a week ago.  It didn’t prevent any of the councillors or KT voicing their opinions. It is the response of the UK Government that has been slow and only in the last 24 hours (since the Trust statement was released) has it achieved a dramatic volte-face. 

As I read it the Trust is publicly stating its supports to what Cllrs Larratt & Hadland said at the Council meeting.  You may agree or disagree with that but that is a clear statement of policy by the Trust’s board of directors. 

As to those who say the statement only repeats information already in the public domain, they forget very quickly that it is only the hard work of the Trust that has succeeded in getting that information or the bulk of it into the public domain in the first place.   Our owners have throughout treated their supporters with no entitlement to hard information and are deeply resentful of the Trust for its stand (no pun intended). 

Some of you are singing from the owners’ songbook and it will be music to their ears..

[BackOfTheNet]

Vintage, this isn't about taking one side or another, it's simply about common sense. At a time when our club (and many others) are likely to be at risk due to world affairs, I just don't think an article with the provocative headline of "Get the East Stand Done!" shows a particular abundance of common sense.

We all want to see the situation resolved but now isn't the time for petty sabre rattling. To be honest, if KT did turn around now and say "Oh, OK then, if that's what people are saying on the Chronicle & Echo website we'd best crack on with the redevelopment" I'd be pretty pissed off with him. We're going to need any cash reserves we have to see us through the current crisis, so spunking it all on a load of concrete and plastic would be somewhat self destructive, don't you think?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Let me offer an alternative point of view and these are my views alone.

If you think KT will stop talking to NBC and pushing for what he wants because of the coronavirus situation, then I would say please think again.  I think the Trust’s statement was a response it considered necessary to last week’s Council meeting and the critical comments of 2 senior Tories about our owners in response to the LIbDems Leader’s question as to what is going on. This was  quickly followed by KT’s riposte on the club’s website.  The health crisis was in full swing a week ago.  It didn’t prevent any of the councillors or KT voicing their opinions. It is the response of the UK Government that has been slow and only in the last 24 hours (since the Trust statement was released) has it achieved a dramatic volte-face. 

As I read it the Trust is publicly stating its supports to what Cllrs Larratt & Hadland said at the Council meeting.  You may agree or disagree with that but that is a clear statement of policy by the Trust’s board of directors. 

As to those who say the statement only repeats information already in the public domain, they forget very quickly that it is only the hard work of the Trust that has succeeded in getting that information or the bulk of it into the public domain in the first place.   Our owners have throughout treated their supporters with no entitlement to hard information and are deeply resentful of the Trust for its stand (no pun intended). 

Some of you are singing from the owners’ songbook and it will be music to their ears..

VC my question is does the trust represent the supporters and/or its members, or does it represent the agendas of those in charge? It’s a simple question and some clarity regarding this would be most helpful? My fear is that the trust has lost its way and become a shadow of the organisation it was set up to be? This may be grossly unfair, but as a member of the trust I feel it is a fairly reasonable that I ask the question? With all due respect your comments regarding the owners are something of a side issue regarding this matter. It’s a straight forward question, who are the trust speaking for and what evidence do they have in support of any response? I’m sorry if this comes across as confrontational, but I have asked a few similar questions before and no one saw fit to respond? As a member of the trust by implication these communications are speaking for me, so I really feel I am entitled to a response? And don’t give me any clap trap about this not being the forum for it, the trust are happy to use it when it suits?

[guest3338]

VC my question is does the trust represent the supporters and/or its members, or does it represent the agendas of those in charge? It’s a simple question and some clarity regarding this would be most helpful? My fear is that the trust has lost its way and become a shadow of the organisation it was set up to be? This may be grossly unfair, but as a member of the trust I feel it is a fairly reasonable that I ask the question? With all due respect your comments regarding the owners are something of a side issue regarding this matter. It’s a straight forward question, who are the trust speaking for and what evidence do they have in support of any response? I’m sorry if this comes across as confrontational, but I have asked a few similar questions before and no one saw fit to respond? As a member of the trust by implication these communications are speaking for me, so I really feel I am entitled to a response? And don’t give me any clap trap about this not being the forum for it, the trust are happy to use it when it suits?

Hi Melbourne, jumping in ahead of Vintage here.
I'm also a member of the Trust and agree with your thoughts re member involvement generally. We do seem to act most of the time from the top down with little or no involvement from the rank and file. What I would ask though, is who's fault is that? The Trust board or the membership in general, or both?
Personally, I'm not damming at all of the officers of the Trust (not suggesting you are either btw)... I dont get involved directly and accept I joined an organisation that at the time i felt had the best of intentions towards the club I support. I believe this still. If I was very unhappy with what is now going on, two options would be open to me...to revoke my membership or to get more involved in an attempt to affect change. Numbers have dropped off I believe, which is saddening and probably indicative of the way the support feels towards the Trust in general, but whilst not practical for all, the only way to change that is from within.

[guest48]

Hi Melbourne, jumping in ahead of Vintage here.
I'm also a member of the Trust and agree with your thoughts re member involvement generally. We do seem to act most of the time from the top down with little or no involvement from the rank and file. What I would ask though, is who's fault is that? The Trust board or the membership in general, or both?
Personally, I'm not damming at all of the officers of the Trust (not suggesting you are either btw)... I dont get involved directly and accept I joined an organisation that at the time i felt had the best of intentions towards the club I support. I believe this still. If I was very unhappy with what is now going on, two options would be open to me...to revoke my membership or to get more involved in an attempt to affect change. Numbers have dropped off I believe, which is saddening and probably indicative of the way the support feels towards the Trust in general, but whilst not practical for all, the only way to change that is from within.

A few months ago I made the decision not to post on Trust maters on here, basically because of a few who would argue that it was dark at mid day if the Trust said it was light. As CJ has stated, if you don't like what is happening in the Trust, you can change it from within. Numbers have dropped from when the Cardoza episode came to light, but that is always the case and our numbers compared to other clubs our size are very good, Trust owned clubs not included.
      The statement that was put out was talked about last week and the release date set for yesterday, yes as things stand, it probably wasn't the ideal time to issue a statement, but one of the things we get criticized for is lack of communication, so it has been dammed if you do or dammed if you don't.
      I'll just leave all you critics with this thought, the Trust board have just under 600 years of being Cobblers fans between us, we do what we do with no chance of financial gain, the only thing we all want is for NTFC to successful and have a future. The people currently, and think about "Currently" because we will be here , hopefully, long after they have gone, have 12 years of being directors of NTFC between them and stand to make a significant financial gain if everything goes for them.
       Who would you put money on having the clubs best interests at heart ?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

As to those who say the statement only repeats information already in the public domain, they forget very quickly that it is only the hard work of the Trust that has succeeded in getting that information or the bulk of it into the public domain in the first place.   Our owners have throughout treated their supporters with no entitlement to hard information and are deeply resentful of the Trust for its stand (no pun intended). 

I don't agree with this at all. It has been abundantly clear for a significant amount of time that the land issue was the sticking point. It has also been abundantly clear for just as long, that KT & DB were going to use the land for a degree of personal gain. What has not been clear is whether or not a deal can be structured around its use that will benefit the club, or indeed if that is their intention to do that. As far as I am aware, the Trust do not have a crystal ball, so like the rest of us, they are at the mercy of those who have some leverage in negotiations surrounding the land. As I stated at very clearly at a Trust meeting many months ago.

Over recent years, the Trust might of been instrumental in gaining access to certain information. But I cannot think of one shred of information, that has done anything other than compound existing knowledge, or point out what was either assumed, or known for an eternity.

As I said. It's time for people to grow up, and stop trying to score petty points...

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

A few months ago I made the decision not to post on Trust maters on here, basically because of a few who would argue that it was dark at mid day if the Trust said it was light. As CJ has stated, if you don't like what is happening in the Trust, you can change it from within. Numbers have dropped from when the Cardoza episode came to light, but that is always the case and our numbers compared to other clubs our size are very good, Trust owned clubs not included.
      The statement that was put out was talked about last week and the realise date set for yesterday, yes as things stand, it probably wasn't the ideal time to issue a statement, but one of the things we get criticized for is lack of communication, so it has been dammed if you do or dammed if you don't.
      I'll just leave all you critics with this thought, the Trust board have just under 600 years of being Cobblers fans between us, we do what we do with no chance of financial gain, the only thing we all want is for NTFC to successful and have a future. The people currently, and think about "Currently" because we will be here , hopefully, long after they have gone, have 12 years of being directors of NTFC between them and stand to make a significant financial gain if everything goes for them.
       Who would you put money on having the clubs best interests at heart ?

So we are back to the mantra, that unless you are a member of the Trust board, you should shut up? That point has never held up to scrutiny and you're better than that Rog

It sounds no better than KT's point of invest in the club if you want a say.

Stop dodging to bullet and canvass the membership.

[guest48]

So we are back to the mantra, that unless you are a member of the Trust board, you should shut up? That point has never held up to scrutiny and you're better than that Rog

It sounds no better than KT's point of invest in the club if you want a say.

Stop dodging to bullet and canvass the membership.

Maybe time to look at the last line of your previous post Nigel and act accordingly  

[Manwork04]

So we are back to the mantra, that unless you are a member of the Trust board, you should shut up? That point has never held up to scrutiny and you're better than that Rog

It sounds no better than KT's point of invest in the club if you want a say.

Stop dodging to bullet and canvass the membership.

Canvassing the membership is a great idea, now what exactly are you going to ask them?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Maybe time to look at the last line of your previous post Nigel and act accordingly  

What... You want me to Canvass your membership??

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Canvassing the membership is a great idea, now what exactly are you going to ask them?

Well... At this particular time, I admit it is difficult. Because the first thing I would suggest is an open meeting. Inviting those who wish to attend, to submit their perspective on the current ownership and if they are satisfied with the delays to the ground redevelopment. It would be a debate around the issue, where options around protest, boycotts etc could be debated and affirmative action could be decided upon. In addition to this, the idea of pressuring elected officials at the council to stand up to be accounted for, could also be discussed. And by what means that is achieved.

The idea, is to get an informed perspective from your membership and the support base.

In my opinion, there is no consensus. The vast majority of the support do not want any active lobbying towards the club, and there is no appetite much past a few on the Trust to pursue this at any level. I am not saying I agree with it. But I don't think the Trust are fighting for the support, because I don't think a huge percentage of them see it at the same level of importance as some on the Trust board do. I am resigned to the fact that I will be labelled as siding with KT, by insisting on the pursuance of a more reflective and democratic perspective of the supports feeling. But I am genuinely not trying to downplay the integrity and sentiment of the Trusts actions. I am merely saying, let's see if it is in step with the support. Personally I think they are a mile away from where they want to be. And I believe, if called, the meeting would be as poorly attended as the Park Inn meeting. But I am very aware that is just my opinion.

[guest3264]

As an Open meeting is not encouraged in these virus times, maybe a vehicle could be Radio Northampton using their 'Cobblers Show' on Thursday (6-7) to invite the CEO of NBC, Larratt or Harland and KT to answer questions from supporters of every opinions?

[guest3338]

Well... At this particular time, I admit it is difficult. Because the first thing I would suggest is an open meeting. Inviting those who wish to attend, to submit their perspective on the current ownership and if they are satisfied with the delays to the ground redevelopment. It would be a debate around the issue, where options around protest, boycotts etc could be debated and affirmative action could be decided upon. In addition to this, the idea of pressuring elected officials at the council to stand up to be accounted for, could also be discussed. And by what means that is achieved.

The idea, is to get an informed perspective from your membership and the support base.

In my opinion, there is no consensus. The vast majority of the support do not want any active lobbying towards the club, and there is no appetite much past a few on the Trust to pursue this at any level. I am not saying I agree with it. But I don't think the Trust are fighting for the support, because I don't think a huge percentage of them see it at the same level of importance as some on the Trust board do. I am resigned to the fact that I will be labelled as siding with KT, by insisting on the pursuance of a more reflective and democratic perspective of the supports feeling. But I am genuinely not trying to downplay the integrity and sentiment of the Trusts actions. I am merely saying, let's see if it is in step with the support. Personally I think they are a mile away from where they want to be. And I believe, if called, the meeting would be as poorly attended as the Park Inn meeting. But I am very aware that is just my opinion.

So we are back to the mantra, that unless you are a member of the Trust board, you should shut up? That point has never held up to scrutiny and you're better than that Rog

It sounds no better than KT's point of invest in the club if you want a say.

Stop dodging to bullet and canvass the membership.

Why do we, you and me, need canvassing? We will react to any organisation that we belong in whatever way we see fit. Multiple choice questions... do I want it this way or do I want it that way have never worked for me because by essence they are limiting. There is nothing stopping me or you from joining in (as you have previously I believe), and attempting change. Maybe when you did you failed to get things going the way you wanted? If that's the case why not simply walk away and leave alone instead of constantly picking fault, because in continuing to do so, to me from this distance, it only makes you sound like a very sore loser with an axe to grind and nothing positive to offer.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Are the trust board happy with the numbers and proactive activity of the membership? If so carry on as we are and sorry for raising the issue? And yes, I am as guilty as anyone.

[guest48]

Are the trust board happy with the numbers and proactive activity of the membership? If so carry on as we are and sorry for raising the issue? And yes, I am as guilty as anyone.

We have always said we would like more people to get involved and that still stands

[Melbourne Cobbler]

We have always said we would like more people to get involved and that still stands

I’m not having a go Rog, I’m really not mate. I just think the trust could perhaps be a bit more proactive in getting the membership engaged? So many people have so much pressure on their time if you are not constantly promoting dialogue it is all too easy to let trust matters fall by the wayside. The trust is actually one of the few things I am really proud about regarding NTFC. It’s a real shame that during my time in Oz upon becoming a member I have not received a single communication from the trust? Absolutely I am equally to blame. I spend enough time tippy tappying on here so why not do something constructive? I know Rich says communication is a bit pointless but I happen to disagree. If you actively engage with the membership then you gain a momentum, and momentum is what can drive positive change. What I do know is the trust is floundering a bit. I don’t mean that as a criticism I really don’t, I just feel it is not galvanising support in a unified direction. That is not easy granted, but where Vintage, Manny and many others on here have an idea is around community ownership. The problem is many are questioning whether community ownership is even viable? If I was to ask a member of the board what percentage of the membership supported that ideology what would the answer be? Everything you need to know is right there? Now remember this is an organisation that is representative of the membership, has investigated this option and invited guest speakers on the subject? Is that really acceptable of an organisation that is run for the benefit of the membership? As I said, I am really not having a go and am only bring this up solely in an attempt to be constructive and with the best intentions. Send emails, invite opinion and regularly. I wish I could be at KPWMC I really do, if only to drink some decent beer and avoid talking about that god awful AFL.  But I can’t, and I’m guessing a significant number of the membership can’t either? Love and respect to you all on the trust board Rog and I really mean that. I know it all comes from the heart.

[guest3338]

I’m not having a go Rog, I’m really not mate. I just think the trust could perhaps be a bit more proactive in getting the membership engaged? So many people have so much pressure on their time if you are not constantly promoting dialogue it is all too easy to let trust matters fall by the wayside. The trust is actually one of the few things I am really proud about regarding NTFC. It’s a real shame that during my time in Oz upon becoming a member I have not received a single communication from the trust? Absolutely I am equally to blame. I spend enough time tippy tappying on here so why not do something constructive? I know Rich says communication is a bit pointless but I happen to disagree. If you actively engage with the membership then you gain a momentum, and momentum is what can drive positive change. What I do know is the trust is floundering a bit. I don’t mean that as a criticism I really don’t, I just feel it is not galvanising support in a unified direction. That is not easy granted, but where Vintage, Manny and many others on here have an idea is around community ownership. The problem is many are questioning whether community ownership is even viable? If I was to ask a member of the board what percentage of the membership supported that ideology what would the answer be? Everything you need to know is right there? Now remember this is an organisation that is representative of the membership, has investigated this option and invited guest speakers on the subject? Is that really acceptable of an organisation that is run for the benefit of the membership? As I said, I am really not having a go and am only bring this up solely in an attempt to be constructive and with the best intentions. Send emails, invite opinion and regularly. I wish I could be at KPWMC I really do, if only to drink some decent beer and avoid talking about that god awful AFL.  But I can’t, and I’m guessing a significant number of the membership can’t either? Love and respect to you all on the trust board Rog and I really mean that. I know it all comes from the heart.

Just to be clear Melbourne, I'm not saying no communication is needed, I am also critical of the current levels of that. What I am saying is if change needs to be made within the Trust, waiting for the board to instigate that by canvassing others is wrong. Individuals who feel strongly enough and have the skills and time to drive it in a different direction shouldn't need prodding. If people have tried that but failed to change opinions at board level it should be left at just that.

[guest3264]

I am not criticising the current board of the Trust who voluntary give their time up for the benefit of fans of NTFC.
I choose to give my time to other areas but I still have a passion after 50+years for the Cobblers.

I suggest an annual questionairre is emailed to Trust members on current issues.
Not only would it give feedback to the committee but members would feel more involved (in a small way) in decision making.

[guest48]

I am not criticising the current board of the Trust who voluntary give their time up for the benefit of fans of NTFC.
I choose to give my time to other areas but I still have a passion after 50+years for the Cobblers.

I suggest an annual questionairre is emailed to Trust members on current issues.
Not only would it give feedback to the committee but members would feel more involved (in a small way) in decision making.

Good idea, if and when we have our next board meeting, I'll suggest this. The one problem is how many email addresses we have, we sent out forms with the AGM details asking for addresses but I would think we only have about half of our members emails.
     I know we don't send AGM stuff to members outside the UK so if members abroad want to put their details in the contact section of our web page then we can add them to our lists.

[guest3264]

Good idea, if and when we have our next board meeting, I'll suggest this. The one problem is how many email addresses we have, we sent out forms with the AGM details asking for addresses but I would think we only have about half of our members emails.
     I know we don't send AGM stuff to members outside the UK so if members abroad want to put their details in the contact section of our web page then we can add them to our lists.

Roger could you flag up the correct contact email of the Trust so members (and future members) can furnish the Trust with updated details so you have a wider and comprehensive feedback available.