Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[wazzacobbler]

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.

ntfc_trust@outlook.com is the one on their website.

[guest48]

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.

www.ntfctrust.co.uk/
Please use the "Contact Us" form on our new web page       

[wazzacobbler]

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.

To answer this question, the support need to be canvassed in order to be represented fairly by the Trust.

My view is that if the current views and actions of the Trust were representative of the fanbase as a whole (or even just it's membership) we would be seeing the fans directing chants and songs at KT and the rest of the board during games. Fans would be going up to Kelvin (when he is in attendance) at games and demanding answers and pushing him to "finish the East Stand."

The facts are that this is not what is happening. I have, and nor has my Dad (Season Ticket Holder) or any of my friends who regularly go to home games seen this happen. The reason? Because the majority of the fanbase do not share the same views as the Trust on the ownership of the football club.

[wazzacobbler]

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.

To me this shows the apathy that Trust members have about what the Trust are pushing. If people were fully behind the Trust's current campaign to show the owners up as bad actors who don't have the interests of the club at heart and are only out for what they can gain financially from the surrounding land, don't you think membership numbers would be soaring? That's what happens every time the club has been on the brink of ruin in the past.

My view is that the Trust have been blinkered by the opinions of an extreme minority who believe they could and would do it better. Whenever someone (Trust member or not) asks questions of the Trust on here, the same activists pop up to rubbish the poster and accuse them of being "in with the owners of the club". I have myself asked questions of both the Trust and Kelvin Thomas. KT has always been happy to answer them along with any follow up questions I may have. The answers I have received have helped me to form my opinion. With the Trust I always get the feeling that I am seen as the enemy. Maybe it’s because I questioned them on the Project Proud To Be document and poked fun at it. I don’t know for sure. Having said that, Andy Roberts did agree to an interview for the podcast and did answer all questions posed to him.

Anyway, I do have a suggestion that would certainly help the Trust in communicating with their membership and the rest of the fan base. Granted it won’t reach every single one of them but to do that requires a much bigger strategy.

So, a while back Barton Cobbler decided to stop responding to questions left on here that were directed at the Trust. No problem, he shouldn’t have had to be the public face of the Trust on this site in the first place.

This year the Trust have refreshed their website and added a message board of their own where they are happy to answer people who sign up under their real name. This is a complete waste of time and effort I’m afraid.

Why?

Well everyone already has a message board to use. It’s this one. There are also two groups on Facebook dedicated to The Cobblers. Oh, and there is Twitter too. People are hanging out on these platforms, talking about the Cobblers and have been doing so for years.

The Hotel End has 3212 members at the time of writing. There are 2708 members of the “HOTELENDERS - to his horse” facebook group and 4405 of the “The Cobblers - unofficial” facebook group. The NTFC official Twitter account (@ntfc) has 78,000 followers. It has taken years for these sites/groups/accounts to reach those numbers. The Trust’s message board currently has 13 members. 13!

The Trust should create an account on here called The Trust (or something similar). They should either assign the account to one member of the board or share the password around so all board members can sign into it. The Travel/NTFC Supports Ltd section of the forum could be turned into a “questions for the Trust” section. Make the travel bit a sub section of that board to keep it seperate.

For Facebook I suggest the Trust use their existing account to join the two groups and become active in them by posting their own questions and responding to any comments or posts that relate to the Trust. The same can be done on Twitter.

The best thing the Trust could do to increase the awareness of themselves is to join in the conversations that are already taking place. That's what all good businesses do on social media. It’s how the podcast has grown to the size it is. Be vocal, talk to your audience and engage in conversation with them where they hang out. Don't ask them to come to you. Why should we?
---------------------------

In order to make sure the right people do see this suggestion, I have also sent this via email to the Trust.

*EDIT: I tried to do it via the contact page on the website but the character limit was too short so I sent it to the outlook email address listed at the bottom of the site instead.

[BackOfTheNet]

To me this shows the apathy that Trust members have about what the Trust are pushing. If people were fully behind the Trust's current campaign to show the owners up as bad actors who don't have the interests of the club at heart and are only out for what they can gain financially from the surrounding land, don't you think membership numbers would be soaring? That's what happens every time the club has been on the brink of ruin in the past.

My view is that the Trust have been blinkered by the opinions of an extreme minority who believe they could and would do it better. Whenever someone (Trust member or not) asks questions of the Trust on here, the same activists pop up to rubbish the poster and accuse them of being "in with the owners of the club". I have myself asked questions of both the Trust and Kelvin Thomas. KT has always been happy to answer them along with any follow up questions I may have. The answers I have received have helped me to form my opinion. With the Trust I always get the feeling that I am seen as the enemy. Maybe it’s because I questioned them on the Project Proud To Be document and poked fun at it. I don’t know for sure. Having said that, Andy Roberts did agree to an interview for the podcast and did answer all questions posed to him.

Anyway, I do have a suggestion that would certainly help the Trust in communicating with their membership and the rest of the fan base. Granted it won’t reach every single one of them but to do that requires a much bigger strategy.

So, a while back Barton Cobbler decided to stop responding to questions left on here that were directed at the Trust. No problem, he shouldn’t have had to be the public face of the Trust on this site in the first place.

This year the Trust have refreshed their website and added a message board of their own where they are happy to answer people who sign up under their real name. This is a complete waste of time and effort I’m afraid.

Why?

Well everyone already has a message board to use. It’s this one. There are also two groups on Facebook dedicated to The Cobblers. Oh, and there is Twitter too. People are hanging out on these platforms, talking about the Cobblers and have been doing so for years.

The Hotel End has 3212 members at the time of writing. There are 2708 members of the “HOTELENDERS - to his horse” facebook group and 4405 of the “The Cobblers - unofficial” facebook group. The NTFC official Twitter account (@ntfc) has 78,000 followers. It has taken years for these sites/groups/accounts to reach those numbers. The Trust’s message board currently has 13 members. 13!

The Trust should create an account on here called The Trust (or something similar). They should either assign the account to one member of the board or share the password around so all board members can sign into it. The Travel/NTFC Supports Ltd section of the forum could be turned into a “questions for the Trust” section. Make the travel bit a sub section of that board to keep it seperate.

For Facebook I suggest the Trust use their existing account to join the two groups and become active in them by posting their own questions and responding to any comments or posts that relate to the Trust. The same can be done on Twitter.

The best thing the Trust could do to increase the awareness of themselves is to join in the conversations that are already taking place. That's what all good businesses do on social media. It’s how the podcast has grown to the size it is. Be vocal, talk to your audience and engage in conversation with them where they hang out. Don't ask them to come to you. Why should we?
---------------------------

In order to make sure the right people do see this suggestion, I have also sent this via email to the Trust via their contact me page on their website.

Good post.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

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.

So in essence, canvassing the membership.. Mmm.. Sounds familiar 

All joking aside. I think this is absolutely a step in the right direction.

Putting this all aside. It would be very unfair and unnecessary to pursue anything too aggressive in the current challenging climate. E.g. the poor timing of some recent releases..

Like it or not. Sport will take a back seat with any financial help. So we will need our owners to potentially dig deep just to keep the club afloat. No point in even having the buckets out, with nobody around to wave them at.

[everbrite]

So in essence, canvassing the membership.. Mmm.. Sounds familiar 

All joking aside. I think this is absolutely a step in the right direction.

Putting this all aside. It would be very unfair and unnecessary to pursue anything too aggressive in the current challenging climate. E.g. the poor timing of some recent releases..

Like it or not. Sport will take a back seat with any financial help. So we will need our owners to potentially dig deep just to keep the club afloat. No point in even having the buckets out, with nobody around to wave them at.

Hope some on here actually heed you comment in bold above.

[DrillingCobbler]

To me this shows the apathy that Trust members have about what the Trust are pushing. If people were fully behind the Trust's current campaign to show the owners up as bad actors who don't have the interests of the club at heart and are only out for what they can gain financially from the surrounding land, don't you think membership numbers would be soaring? That's what happens every time the club has been on the brink of ruin in the past.

My view is that the Trust have been blinkered by the opinions of an extreme minority who believe they could and would do it better. Whenever someone (Trust member or not) asks questions of the Trust on here, the same activists pop up to rubbish the poster and accuse them of being "in with the owners of the club". I have myself asked questions of both the Trust and Kelvin Thomas. KT has always been happy to answer them along with any follow up questions I may have. The answers I have received have helped me to form my opinion. With the Trust I always get the feeling that I am seen as the enemy. Maybe it’s because I questioned them on the Project Proud To Be document and poked fun at it. I don’t know for sure. Having said that, Andy Roberts did agree to an interview for the podcast and did answer all questions posed to him.

Anyway, I do have a suggestion that would certainly help the Trust in communicating with their membership and the rest of the fan base. Granted it won’t reach every single one of them but to do that requires a much bigger strategy.

So, a while back Barton Cobbler decided to stop responding to questions left on here that were directed at the Trust. No problem, he shouldn’t have had to be the public face of the Trust on this site in the first place.

This year the Trust have refreshed their website and added a message board of their own where they are happy to answer people who sign up under their real name. This is a complete waste of time and effort I’m afraid.

Why?

Well everyone already has a message board to use. It’s this one. There are also two groups on Facebook dedicated to The Cobblers. Oh, and there is Twitter too. People are hanging out on these platforms, talking about the Cobblers and have been doing so for years.

The Hotel End has 3212 members at the time of writing. There are 2708 members of the “HOTELENDERS - to his horse” facebook group and 4405 of the “The Cobblers - unofficial” facebook group. The NTFC official Twitter account (@ntfc) has 78,000 followers. It has taken years for these sites/groups/accounts to reach those numbers. The Trust’s message board currently has 13 members. 13!

The Trust should create an account on here called The Trust (or something similar). They should either assign the account to one member of the board or share the password around so all board members can sign into it. The Travel/NTFC Supports Ltd section of the forum could be turned into a “questions for the Trust” section. Make the travel bit a sub section of that board to keep it seperate.

For Facebook I suggest the Trust use their existing account to join the two groups and become active in them by posting their own questions and responding to any comments or posts that relate to the Trust. The same can be done on Twitter.

The best thing the Trust could do to increase the awareness of themselves is to join in the conversations that are already taking place. That's what all good businesses do on social media. It’s how the podcast has grown to the size it is. Be vocal, talk to your audience and engage in conversation with them where they hang out. Don't ask them to come to you. Why should we?
---------------------------

In order to make sure the right people do see this suggestion, I have also sent this via email to the Trust.

*EDIT: I tried to do it via the contact page on the website but the character limit was too short so I sent it to the outlook email address listed at the bottom of the site instead.

just having a quick catch up on here! Anyway, you know me mate. Happy to engage!

The forum was set up (on the trust website) as a direct mechanism for people to ask us specific questions. End of. Engaging on other platforms, unofficially, is a nightmare. Because a dozen or so of us have varying views on matters, as you would expect. So by having an official outlet, we are able to co-ordinate an official 'Trust response' as opposed to an individual response aka here, on FB, Twitter, wherever. Thats the simple answer to your question mate.

See you soon at a game mate. We need some football to discuss FFS!!

The document that was published early last year was a lesson learned. Anything trust related that is officially launched these days is a co-ordinated and balanced view. The release of Mondays press release was poor timing, but thats down to the Corona Virus. A few days, prior it was measured. When it went out, it wasn't, from a timing perspective. Hopefully people will forgive us on that.

I will end this by saying that in my personal view, its best we park this debate for now and pick things up when we are in better times.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

With regards parking this debate, may I suggest the opposite? I think almost everyone is aware of the gravity of the current situation? I feel anything that diverts even the slightest attention for a minimal amount of time is to be perhaps welcomed and even encouraged?

[Cordwainer2]

When people respond to long diatribes on here, is there any real need to copy it all again? 

[guest3338]

With regards parking this debate, may I suggest the opposite? I think almost everyone is aware of the gravity of the current situation? I feel anything that diverts even the slightest attention for a minimal amount of time is to be perhaps welcomed and even encouraged?

Good idea.
So when we get these new seats for the west, and the North and South are double tiered, how about having white ones in the lower tiers and claret ones in the upper?
I dont think that has been mentioned before on any of the preceding pages.

[wazzacobbler]

just having a quick catch up on here! Anyway, you know me mate. Happy to engage!

The forum was set up (on the trust website) as a direct mechanism for people to ask us specific questions. End of. Engaging on other platforms, unofficially, is a nightmare. Because a dozen or so of us have varying views on matters, as you would expect. So by having an official outlet, we are able to co-ordinate an official 'Trust response' as opposed to an individual response aka here, on FB, Twitter, wherever. Thats the simple answer to your question mate.

See you soon at a game mate. We need some football to discuss FFS!!

The document that was published early last year was a lesson learned. Anything trust related that is officially launched these days is a co-ordinated and balanced view. The release of Mondays press release was poor timing, but thats down to the Corona Virus. A few days, prior it was measured. When it went out, it wasn't, from a timing perspective. Hopefully people will forgive us on that.

I will end this by saying that in my personal view, its best we park this debate for now and pick things up when we are in better times.

Thanks mate. I appreciate you taking time to respond.

I'll send you a PM so as not to convolute this thread further.

[Battery Man]

Good idea.
So when we get these new seats for the west, and the North and South are double tiered, how about having white ones in the lower tiers and claret ones in the upper?
I dont think that has been mentioned before on any of the preceding pages.

I think the North stand when it has 2 tiers should spell out SHOE ARMY with the seats so we could have shoe in claret with white seats surrounding in the top and the other way round in the bottom tier.

[guest3338]

I think the North stand when it has 2 tiers should spell out SHOE ARMY with the seats so we could have shoe in claret with white seats surrounding in the top and the other way round in the bottom tier.

I'm liking that a lot.
Ideally for me, white SHOE in upper tier surrounded by claret and claret ARMY on bottom tier surrounded by white.
Just a matter of swapping the existing seats from lower to upper.
That's the hard part sorted, we just need the owners and council to sort the minor bollox out first.

[Vintage Cobbler]

Frankly, what utter tosh of wazzacobbler to claim that “the Trust have been blinkered by the opinions of an extreme minority who believe they could and would do better”.  Take a look at the various releases made by the Trust in 2019 including those relating to the redevelopment and explain what is “extreme” in any of those statements. 

To those that are complaining that the Trust board is not representing and/or promoting the views of its members and supporters it seems to me to be a case of sour grapes that the views express on this website by these people do not meet with the views of the Trust’s board.  The board meetings I have attended have resulted in sensible discussions on matters like the FOI requests, the land and redevelopment issues at Sixfields. The meetings are usually well attended by the 12 or so directors and all are invited to state their opinion on the item on the agenda under discussion.  So much for extremists.

If the more vociferous of the Trust’s critics were so inclined and wanted to influence the decision making they could have put forward their names to be nominated as directors as recently as last autumn.  You know who you are and not a peep was heard from any of you. I checked that this morning with a Trust director. 

I was one who was highly critical of the Trust in the lead up to the 2015 financial scandal and I was and remain determined to do my little bit to hold owners and the Council accountable.

But this sniping at the Trust is really counter-productive when the spotlight should be on our owners and the Council.  It is a struggle to get answers out of either.  To the likes of Wazzacobbler since you have asked questions (unspecified) of KT and were apparently satisfied with his answers I am sure you can shed some light on matters.  If you were doing your job properly as an aspiring journalist I assume you asked and have the answers to the following basic questions:

- why after claiming for many months from 2017-2018 that the only thing holding up finishing the East Stand was the boundary “regularisation” did KT not sign the legal document when it was sent to him by NBC in June 2018?  It remains unsigned to this day.  The stand could and should have been completed by now!
- why after claiming positive discussions and progress with the Council in January 2019 and subsequently do the FOI disclosures reveal there is no written communication from the owners to NBC on any development aspect until 7 months later in July 2019? 
- why after relinquishing 60% control of the club’s holding company (Ventures) to 5USport in June 2017 and us supporters witnessing increased expenditure on players and managers (especially in the JFH era) does not one pound of inward money appear in the accounts of Ventures or NTFC?  All that appears in the relevant is a significant increased level of debt on the club.

I could ask a lot more questions since those of you have sat and talked with KT and surely have these answers at your finger tips. Please share with us extremists.

 

[wazzacobbler]

If you were doing your job properly as an aspiring journalist I assume you asked and have the answers to the following basic questions:

- why after claiming for many months from 2017-2018 that the only thing holding up finishing the East Stand was the boundary “regularisation” did KT not sign the legal document when it was sent to him by NBC in June 2018?  It remains unsigned to this day.  The stand could and should have been completed by now!
- why after claiming positive discussions and progress with the Council in January 2019 and subsequently do the FOI disclosures reveal there is no written communication from the owners to NBC on any development aspect until 7 months later in July 2019? 
- why after relinquishing 60% control of the club’s holding company (Ventures) to 5USport in June 2017 and us supporters witnessing increased expenditure on players and managers (especially in the JFH era) does not one pound of inward money appear in the accounts of Ventures or NTFC?  All that appears in the relevant is a significant increased level of debt on the club.

I could ask a lot more questions since those of you have sat and talked with KT and surely have these answers at your finger tips. Please share with us extremists.

1. I'm not an aspiring journalist. Please feel free to check out my website to find out what my job is - vibrantsoundmedia.com
2. I will answer your questions in order.
- I haven't asked him that question. Have you?
- Just because there is not written communication doesn't mean there wasn't any communication at all. But to answer your question, I haven't asked him.
- My understanding is that the money was not forthcoming from 5USport, hence no incoming funds on the balance sheet. Once deadlines weren't met for the money to be paid the contract was terminated and KT/DB resumed full control of NTFC. The expected money had already been spent on new players for Edinburgh (Crooks was one, Taylor possibly another). Whether this should have happened is another question. I personally don't spend money until I have received it myself.

The tosh that you speak of is my opinion alone. I still stand by the fact that the overall support do not share the same views as you or the Trust. As I said before, if they did then it would be visible on a match day through chants being directed at the ownership and the board. I'm not sure how you can call it sour grapes to suggest this. It's more pointing out the blindingly obvious. The Trust are not representative of the fan base at this time. They have soured their relationship with the club. I'm sure you will counter that it was KT and DB who caused this by not allowing a Trust representative onto the board of their new company. This obviously wouldn't have been a great first impression but maybe the Trust should have took it on the chin and asked how they could help and support the football club instead of launching into this campaign against them?

I'm sorry that you seem to think I was sniping at the Trust. Maybe I am. I apologise. What I want is for the Trust to work WITH the football club to have the situation around the stadium resolved. All they appear to be doing, in my opinion, is fighting and cat calling.

I don't happen to have an idea of who I mean by those with extreme views but I've obviously hit a nerve with you.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Alternatively VC the Trust could ask for a basic consensus of members opinion regarding community ownership, or other positions of importance? Are you really suggesting that the board should be left to dictate policy without seeking approval from its members irrespective of said importance? It’s all very well being prepared to listen to the opinion of those ordinary members that are able to attend a meeting, but are you saying ordinary members should not dictate policy without getting a position on the board? That is an extraordinary position to take, for an organisation such as the trust? Surely it should be all about democratic inclusive policy and decision making? You might see that as sniping, I see that as a crucial point of principle. I understand you are speaking for yourself only, but I would suggest that the board as a collective take caution with how they respond to questions of that nature? Any answers they give may possibly be counter productive and your stance, if adopted, may prove somewhat unpopular with the ordinary membership? To be honest, as a member of the trust I would find that position unacceptable? I am a little unclear regarding this VC, do you hold a position on the board? If so I have to say I find your post somewhat alarming?

[BackOfTheNet]

I can see the engagement survey now....

Question 1) In your opinion, how important is it for a club to be fan-owned?

a) Vitally Important
b) Critically Important
c) Very Important
d) Important

Question 2) How important is safe seating to you?
a) More important than my job
b) More important than my family
c) More important than the continued existence of society
d) I'd rather lick a covid-19 victim's spitty tissue than have to sit on a seat

Question 3) Is Kelvin Thomas:
a) a bad man?
b) a very bad man?
c) a very naughty boy?
d) the antichrist?

Question 4) If the surrounding land is ever redeveloped, how much money would you consider acceptable for Kelvin Thomas to make out of the deal?
a) Nothing
b) F*** all
c) £0.00
d) -£5,500,000

(Disclaimer: Before anyone has a hissy fit, this is all written in a very tongue in cheek manner and intended as a joke, which is defined by dictionary.com as "n.something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act".)

And yes, I'm aware that if I don't like the way the Trust is run I can stand for election to the board myself. <- for reference, also intended as a joke.

[Vintage Cobbler]

Alternatively VC the Trust could ask for a basic consensus of members opinion regarding community ownership, or other positions of importance? Are you really suggesting that the board should be left to dictate policy without seeking approval from its members irrespective of said importance? It’s all very well being prepared to listen to the opinion of those ordinary members that are able to attend a meeting, but are you saying ordinary members should not dictate policy without getting a position on the board? That is an extraordinary position to take, for an organisation such as the trust? Surely it should be all about democratic inclusive policy and decision making? You might see that as sniping, I see that as a crucial point of principle. I understand you are speaking for yourself only, but I would suggest that the board as a collective take caution with how they respond to questions of that nature? Any answers they give may possibly be counter productive and your stance, if adopted, may prove somewhat unpopular with the ordinary membership? To be honest, as a member of the trust I would find that position unacceptable? I am a little unclear regarding this VC, do you hold a position on the board? If so I have to say I find your post somewhat alarming?

MC, I am not a member of the Trust Board and as I made clear when posting yesterday to all this sniping at the Trust Board the views I express are my own. I hope that is clear.

You seem to be claiming that the Trust Board is acting without a mandate on community ownership.  You could not be more wrong.  The idea of community ownership was mooted in the summer of 2018, discussed at the Trust’s AGM in November 2018 and was the subject of a public meeting in March 2019.  A position statement was put to members at the AGM in November 2019 and approved again.  I was there on each occasion.  Democracy at work.

So, MC may I politely suggest that you get your facts right before firing off such comments.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

MC, I am not a member of the Trust Board and as I made clear when posting yesterday to all this sniping at the Trust Board the views I express are my own. I hope that is clear.

You seem to be claiming that the Trust Board is acting without a mandate on community ownership.  You could not be more wrong.  The idea of community ownership was mooted in the summer of 2018, discussed at the Trust’s AGM in November 2018 and was the subject of a public meeting in March 2019.  A position statement was put to members at the AGM in November 2019 and approved again.  I was there on each occasion.  Democracy at work.

So, MC may I politely suggest that you get your facts right before firing off such comments.

As you have confirmed that you are not a member of the Trust Board, there is no reason for not doing what Wazza did by going to ask KT to answer the questions that Wazza didn't ask?  He may have a bit of time on his hands at the moment to see you.
Could I ask you to do that in order that you stop putting those or any such questions to him on a forum expecting an answer from I don't know who?
(I won't provide another analogy, because you didn't understand the last one that I provided.)

(I know that I am going to regret posting and amongst other things I'll probably be accused of being a KT supporter but I had a spare couple of minutes to waste whilst waiting for the next Cv update.)