Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[guest48]

Sorry Roger but i know of 3 people who felt they were sidelined The big word is "FELT" , no one had the balls to join the Trust board, they could have stood to join but they didn't. No one was excluded and no one has ever been excluded from the Trust board as long as I've been involved

I know who the Chairman is but the point I was making was that I would say that very few people do.

Perhaps it's just me but I think it is a very important time at the club, we have very little going for us and we have lost / losing another opportunity to put pressure on NBC / KT to actually do something to push NTFC forward. All I still see is an owner 90% focussed on development outside the football club whilst very few people say anything.

Again nothing from the Trust in either real support and working with KT nor demanding he delivers what he promised when he gained control of NTFC and it's assets for basically peanuts. Just more Sitting on the fence saying and doing little as happened with DC. We are certainly not sitting on the fence

The Trust MIGHT be working behind the scenes, MIGHT have an opinion, MIGHT have a plan BUT the lack of communication, the lack of a loud voice is doing no-one any favours.Sometimes you just can't shout about everything and this is one of those times

Most of us expect a mid-table season, meaning we are back to square one, with less land and less assets.

[guest48]

This.

Read my reply to Random, the offer stands

[meccanostand]

Interesting times regarding the ownership of NTFC and on a more wider level.

The ability of Thomas and Bower to run the club from abroad (partly) is testament to their business nous but also the hard work of the employees on the ground.

The question remains whether the club could tick over as a member owned entity or part member owned? The experiences of Wycombe, Wimbledon and Exeter would suggest so. The Premier League solidarity payments, season ticket sales etc would give a member owned entity a workable budget in League 2.

So when Kelvin talks about partners it is worth considering as fans if these partners can genuinely take us to the 'next level' which in League 1 terms means a multi-million outlay. Championship even more. Even the Chinese money that went in which was a fair amount wasn't enough to touch the sides.

Thomas hinting that he could be interesting in hiring someone on the ground to add energy is something a member owned entity could do.

In any case it seems a good time for the Trust to be making a public play for a greater stake in the club. If Thomas was to sell to a partnership then there is a case that the partnership should be between the fans and the interested party.

Whenever Bower and Thomas leave, if they could do so with a solid fan-ownership component it would be a good legacy.




 

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Read my reply to Random, the offer stands

I don't think it is necessary for people to help. There is very little to help with. It is necessary for the Trust to be candid and open with its members. I still believe that any meetings you are involved in should be minuted and published. I was very fortunate that I didn't need to pursue my request for this any further, as I was lucky enough to get a break down of what has been said in those meetings, but not by a member of the Trust.

If the Trust can't go into a meeting, safe in the knowledge that they do so purely for the interest of their members, they should not be there. If they cannot walk out and tell their membership what is happening, they should not be there.

If the discussions are ongoing with the council, what are those discussions? Who's interest are you representing? What is the agenda of those meetings? And finally... What do you hope to achieve and for who?

Can I just finally add. I have nothing but admiration for the Trusts efforts in nearly all areas. But there can be no secrets. Not with those that represent us.

[clarkeysntfc]

I don't think it is necessary for people to help. There is very little to help with. It is necessary for the Trust to be candid and open with its members. I still believe that any meetings you are involved in should be minuted and published. I was very fortunate that I didn't need to pursue my request for this any further, as I was lucky enough to get a break down of what has been said in those meetings, but not by a member of the Trust.

If the Trust can't go into a meeting, safe in the knowledge that they do so purely for the interest of their members, they should not be there. If they cannot walk out and tell their membership what is happening, they should not be there.

If the discussions are ongoing with the council, what are those discussions? Who's interest are you representing? What is the agenda of those meetings? And finally... What do you hope to achieve and for who?

Can I just finally add. I have nothing but admiration for the Trusts efforts in nearly all areas. But there can be no secrets. Not with those that represent us.

This is precisely why I am not a member of the trust, simply because you appear to need to be in the very inner most inner circle to have any sort of knowledge or sway in what's going on.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

This is precisely why I am not a member of the trust, simply because you appear to need to be in the very inner most inner circle to have any sort of knowledge or sway in what's going on.

I genuinely don't think it is intentional. It has simply lost its way.

[meccanostand]

I genuinely don't think it is intentional. It has simply lost its way.

Just need benchmarking against the top trusts, see what they do and ours don't.

Have a look at Wycombe Trust's site and compare it to ours.

http://www.wycombewandererstrust.com/

Regaining the place on the Trust board should be a public focus.

[meccanostand]

BBC reporting Missing Millions scandal could cost every household in the Borough £100. First capital repayment on the loan of £1.5 million due to be repayed by the Council in 9 weeks.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-44900584

[FezNTFC]

Speaking as a now former member of the Trust board, I think that any potential valid criticism of the Trust has always been buried deep within the majority of the total nonsense that is spouted about it.

Writing things such as 'they only appointed middle aged white men' is just complete bulls***. For as long as I can remember, anyone who has wanted to stand for the board has been elected unopposed or co-opted onto the board. I wouldn't dream of making stuff up like that to try and score a point, but it seems par for the course on this forum nowadays.

[Cordwainer2]

Speaking as a now former member of the Trust board, I think that any potential valid criticism of the Trust has always been buried deep within the majority of the total nonsense that is spouted about it.

Writing things such as 'they only appointed middle aged white men' is just complete bulls***. For as long as I can remember, anyone who has wanted to stand for the board has been elected unopposed or co-opted onto the board. I wouldn't dream of making stuff up like that to try and score a point, but it seems par for the course on this forum nowadays

As another ex board member, I totally agree.

[meccanostand]

Speaking as a now former member of the Trust board, I think that any potential valid criticism of the Trust has always been buried deep within the majority of the total nonsense that is spouted about it.

Writing things such as 'they only appointed middle aged white men' is just complete bulls***. For as long as I can remember, anyone who has wanted to stand for the board has been elected unopposed or co-opted onto the board. I wouldn't dream of making stuff up like that to try and score a point, but it seems par for the course on this forum nowadays.

The middle aged white men quip is by the by. The important thing is the role, focus and processes. It's a chicken and egg thing, the trust needs dynamic people to drive it but dynamic people won't be attracted to a marginalised entity. That is why board status is crucial.

[everbrite]

The middle aged white men quip is by the by. The important thing is the role, focus and processes. It's a chicken and egg thing, the trust needs dynamic people to drive it but dynamic people won't be attracted to a marginalised entity. That is why board status is crucial.

You do spout some utter contrived rubbish!

[FezNTFC]

The middle aged white men quip is by the by. The important thing is the role, focus and processes. It's a chicken and egg thing, the trust needs dynamic people to drive it but dynamic people won't be attracted to a marginalised entity. That is why board status is crucial.

I don't see it as by the by at all. Uninformed posts such as that one which go unchallenged paint an unfair picture of Trust board members, which in turn potentially puts people off joining.

With regards to the process you talk about, I agree it's a chicken and egg situation. At some point though, some new people need to come through and break that cycle.

You need to take little steps before taking a massive one. You raise the point about people not being attracted to a marginalised entity. I would want to be joining it at that stage to help it improve in any way that I could so that it becomes more than that. The dynamic people you refer to will want to join and help shape that vision from the ground up, they wouldn't be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

[tcobb]

Agree with Everbrite.
Meccostand i think the bases of the Trust is good, although as Fenners points out it does have a few problems but i cant see why these cant be sorted out. But all you keep banging on about is having a Rep' on the board and fan ownership, i think the Trust is a better voice for the fans when it is seperate from the Club, i for one will rejoin it this season and will remain a member as long as it stays that way.

[meccanostand]

I don't see it as by the by at all. Uninformed posts such as that one which go unchallenged paint an unfair picture of Trust board members, which in turn potentially puts people off joining.

With regards to the process you talk about, I agree it's a chicken and egg situation. At some point though, some new people need to come through and break that cycle.

You need to take little steps before taking a massive one. You raise the point about people not being attracted to a marginalised entity. I would want to be joining it at that stage to help it improve in any way that I could so that it becomes more than that. The dynamic people you refer to will want to join and help shape that vision from the ground up, they wouldn't be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Fair points.

[meccanostand]

Agree with Everbrite.
Meccostand i think the bases of the Trust is good, although as Fenners points out it does have a few problems but i cant see why these cant be sorted out. But all you keep banging on about is having a Rep' on the board and fan ownership, i think the Trust is a better voice for the fans when it is seperate from the Club, i for one will rejoin it this season and will remain a member as long as it stays that way.

Agreeing with Everbrite is your first main error. The whole point of supporters trusts is for them to be active partners in running of the clubs. Our fans set up the very first one. I think you are thinking of a fan club.

[guest170]

A Trust doesn't need to have a place on the board in order to do the things they do.
Everything the WWFC Trust has given / done for the club on the website you linked, our Trust can and has done, with the exception of 'Providing governance over its subsidiary companies'.
Having a Trust act in an advisory role to the club over certain matters, match day experience for example, is a good thing but I am unsure about the positives of having a Trust on a board in a way they have high influence. Surely this will limit potential partners / new owners who would want to be able to control their club/business as they wish.
I know of the Germany model where it is a know factor but for that to work in this country (or any country where it isn't the norm) would take a huge tidal change, wouldn't it?

[meccanostand]

A Trust doesn't need to have a place on the board in order to do the things they do.
Everything the WWFC Trust has given / done for the club on the website you linked, our Trust can and has done, with the exception of 'Providing governance over its subsidiary companies'.
Having a Trust act in an advisory role to the club over certain matters, match day experience for example, is a good thing but I am unsure about the positives of having a Trust on a board in a way they have high influence. Surely this will limit potential partners / new owners who would want to be able to control their club/business as they wish.
I know of the Germany model where it is a know factor but for that to work in this country (or any country where it isn't the norm) would take a huge tidal change, wouldn't it?

A place on the club board is seen as one of the benchmarks of Trust work. I spoke to Brian Lomax at length about this. It also comes with responsibilities and benefits of access to company information. Why you would want the fans on the outside of this god only knows.

Any new owners worth their salt will not be put off by having a supporters rep on the board.

There are various functions that the Wycombe Trust do that our Trust do not. I might collate them when I get 5 mins. They run the club so you can probably take it as a given.

Have a look at the Pompey Trust and their work. Specifically the strategic plan. Does our have a strategic plan?

https://pompeytrust.com/

I presume you are talking about the 50+1 model in Germany? No it wouldn't take a sea change. There are already clubs in League 1 and 2 operating at different fan ownership levels.

Again, I don't want this to turn into Trust bashing. The board members are all approachable and Fez has asked for help on here several times.

[tcobb]

Thats where people like you scare other supporters Meccanostand, you blindly keep banging one drum constantly, overiding other peoples concerns claiming your way is the only way. A lot of fans do not have a need for a fan owned Club or a Trust run Club, people just want a decent team to watch and a Club that is solvent. Avoiding all the pitfalls and potential fall outs of fans having a say in running a Football Club.

[guest168]

Hi Fez, I am sorry if what I wrote about middle aged white men was taken as though you were actively discriminating against others, that is not what I meant. I agree that you and the board have been very open and willing in inviting anyone to help.

At the same time, rightly or wrongly, the 3 members appointed were Kevin, Tony and Andy - all middle aged white men and perhaps the Trust should actively be calling for more diversity on the board, in this day and age it is not enough to say we don't stop anyone who wants to help.

At the time I offered and wanted to get more involved, I send Kevin my CV demonstrating various experience and skills, said I wanted to get involved, wanted to help with various planning (NBC, etc etc) and was told we need you to basically rattle a bucket. I made suggestions to speed up the membership process as this was a great opportunity to get people invested in NTFC and the Trust, so asking people to join rather than just collecting money in a bucket, this was instantly dismissed as we do it this way and we can't issue same day memberships etc. At a board meeting I implored the board to take some control, that it was a great opportunity to 'get in' the NBC as they were the ones holding the cards, I offered to help there. I have been to a board meeting where you spend 40 minutes talking about traders at your car boot ! and at no time even mention DC or what was happening at the club.

I think the big issue with the Trust is that it doesn't know what it is and neither do the fans, as you rightly said everyone has a different opinion and wants the Trust to be different things.

Myself I want the Trust to be pushing NTFC forward, at least trying to fulfil it's potential, I don't want outsiders take cheap advantage of the surrounding land that will benefit them and not NTFC. I want the Trust to publicly ask KT what his plans are and keep asking him until he answers.
Ideally I want the Trust to own 51% of the shares - again I don't understand how 'fans' can say an outsider is better than fans - so if KT supported Lincoln then he is ok to run / own NTFC but not Lincoln? You think NTFC would be better off than if he was at the club he supported man and boy?

IF the club was established in League 1, had a half decent ground, own training facilities, land firmly in it's control etc then the Trust as it is today would be fine but we are a long way from that. There is much work to do.