The Hotel End

So which clubs would you prefer to be compared with ? One minute it’s geography based, then they are too big or too successful

The fact that you are not concerned the owners sold the club for £6.68m and didn’t inform the fans is less important to you than a slide saying we want wow is frankly unbelievable

I now have to assume u are a 12 year old shotboro troll

So which clubs would you prefer to be compared with ? One minute it’s geography based, then they are too big or too successful

Slide 18-20 - comparisons to two arbitrary clubs at opposite ends of the country. I'd suggest for this to have any meaning you'd need to see all 72 clubs side by side, otherwise it looks cherry picked.

Slide 23 - Some attendance figures comparing us to local rivals! It doesn't say what period the average attendance represents so is rendered pretty worthless. Let's assume it's this season, in which case all 5 clubs it compares us to are currently in a higher division than us and thus not a great comparison. Looking at the numbers in relation to each other though:

Club                 Ave Attendance   Capacity   % of capacity
Leicester        31851                  32312        99%
Luton        7863                   10356        76%
Northampton  5100                   7798          65%
Cambridge        4366                   8127          54%
Peterborough  7365                  15314         48%
MK Dons        8224                   30500         27%

I'd look at that and say MK Dons ground is clearly too big and Leicester's is too small. Everyone in the middle? Probably about right. This certainly isn't an argument for blowing large amounts of money on a significantly bigger ground!

The fact that you are not concerned the owners sold the club for £6.68m and didn’t inform the fans is less important to you than a slide saying we want wow is frankly unbelievable

Who is Tom Reed?  (Reedism?)

Who is Tom Reed?  (Reedism?)

Tom used to post on here as Mecanno Stand, I think. He also writes the football stuff for the Nenequirer. He was the guy behind the infamous Park Inn leaflet.

In fairness, I've no idea if he was involved in this or not, it's just that certain of the slides sound tonally very like his writing. I freely and humbly apologise if he had nothing to do with it!

Would someone please try to explain what they hope to achieve?

I think that precisely is the point.

I dont know if I am missing something.

 I am sure some members of the Trust board have the best interests of the club at heart but they seem very misguided

They seem to be asking the Council not to approve any deal. I assume.therefore, that they are against any development. They produce a mishmash of ideas but they are asking the Council for what? The Council does not control the Land . It has no power over the Club except to say no and even that may then become subject to a Judicial review. It has no right to dictate how a private company should be run. They are appealing for inertia.

Would someone please try to explain what they hope to achieve?

I said earlier, the Trust are likely to cause more harm than good with their current stance and this is exactly why. By throwing continual spanners in the works, they are only likely to derail talks between KT/DB and WNC. At some point, KT & DB might just get sick of it all and write it off as a bad lot. I hope they don't and I don't think they will, but that's based on nothing more than gut feel. If they did, I can't say I'd blame them and the Trust would have been instrumental in bringing about the very doomsday scenario they claim to be so worried about.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

I think there is more chance of them walking if the stories of them regaining control of the club from the Chinese for no outlay have substance. Can't see them leaving anytime soon if they are 7 million (or whatever it is) down as the official figures suggest.

Don’t let Microsoft see it.. They’ll sue them for misuse of PowerPoint..

World domination. They’re planning on annexing Poland next week. I hear their leader now drives around in a tank.

He didn't get it from me  ;)

World domination. They’re planning on annexing Poland next week. I hear their leader now drives around in a tank.

And he'll be round your house next week ;)

What did you think of Kelvin's by comparison?

I really cannot understand peoples obsession with the "Chinese Deal" and the money. DB/KT made a deal with some Chinese chancers. The deal fell through. DB/KT made some money out of it. At the end of the day those transactions and any money involved if fúck all to do with anybody on this board or the high and mighty trust. It was a private deal and if you want them to disclose this then get every supporter and the trust to show every thing about their private monetary dealings.

It comes across as the Trust's wish list of hopes/ideas/proposals and dreams. Nothing wrong with having dreams of course but the presentation seems short of the practical means of achieving these.
I'm not at all sure what the Trust is actually asking WNC to do?

Probably because there aren’t any practical measures that will guarantee a team to achieve massively beyond the size and income of the club. When it boils down to it football is a sport and there’s so much luck involved in appointing the right manager at the right team who gets lucky with their recruitment. We appoint Gary Johnson and he’s a big failure, he then goes to a smaller club in Yeovil and takes them to the championship. Of course people will say ‘Look at team ‘x’ are their overachieving we should be doing what they are’ even though the different team that was their the flavour of the month a few years back has since been relegated back to their natural level.

In my time supporting the club the closest we’ve been to the championship was the play off final defeat to Grimsby, was that under the best manager I’ve seen?, far from it, was it with the best players I’ve seen at the club?, very far from it. There’s nothing wrong with having goals, looking at what you’re doing and trying to do it better, but the thing is pretty much every other team is doing the same. I’m sure I’ll be accused of ‘setting for mediocrity’ but having a certain amount of pragmatism helps fans from getting eaten up with what they want for the club as there probably 40-50 teams who’s fans think they should be in the prem, with nearly all the rest thinking they should be in the championship.

That's a good post Winslow and it cuts it all back to what supporting a club should be about. The reality is we SHOULD be in League 2, because that's where we are after 125 years of playing. If you haven't found your level in that time you aren't going to. The only injustice in that time worked in our favour when we stayed in the league thanks to Kidderminster not completing their ground upgrade in time!

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in League 1 and aspire to being in the Championship, but I genuinely don't think I'd want us to get to the Premier League. At that point it becomes too global rather than local, we'd lose the close-knit nature of the club and get lost amongst all the Johnny-Come-Latelies and hangers on. I kind of like supporting a club where we can have idle banter about bumping into players in the supermarket or where you walk past Sammo in the street and he recognises you and says hello, or where Wendy in the shop knows your name when you go in and asks about your family. I just want to be able to go and watch my team play decent, entertaining football, have something to celebrate now and again and generally have enough security around the club to not be chucking money in buckets every few years. As long as we're doing that, I'm really not that bothered about what level we're doing it at.

I know where you are coming from mate, but I think as a club we have an identity, L1 is where we should be IMO  but we need a few improvements in our infrastructure to make that commercially sustainable and not reliant on a sugar daddy to be bankrolling the club constantly.
Under the current plans that isn’t going to happen, I am not in the Trusts camp when it comes to DB not making a profit from the land BUT it also needs to be fair, we need to protect our future.

UTC.

Tone - The numbers at this stage are unknown so no-one can give you figures of who benefits to what.

I believe that the owners want to split everything down the middle basically - costs and profits with WNC.

I also believe that the Trust are the mechanism as much as KT and his supporters hate it, fortunately WNC are interested in the long term benefits for NTFC as are the Trust.

There are no long term benefits. OK so we might get a ground that will hold 12,000 but we wont fill it. The gates will stay pretty much as they are and in ten years anything that went to the club will have been squandered on brief forays into L1 and we will be back as BON says in L2 where we belong.

Tone - The numbers at this stage are unknown so no-one can give you figures of who benefits to what.

But at the time of any signed and sealed deal I assume they will. I am sure there will be caveats. So if if the money was split 50/50% (for arguments sake and after current debts are settled) is everyone happy?
Assuming that was to happen and the owners chose this moment to move on, they still have to find a buyer and they wouldn't leave for this infamous quid considering we'd have to assume that the club would have cash in the bank. I don't see a happy ending, other than us being left debt free with a finished East stand, which appears to be the current best case scenario. KT and co go onto their next project and we can let the local consortium step in, if any of them are still alive.

There are no long term benefits. OK so we might get a ground that will hold 12,000 but we wont fill it. The gates will stay pretty much as they are and in ten years anything that went to the club will have benn squandered on brief forays into L1 and we will be back as BON says in L2 where we belong.

Taken from June 2020 accounts

Cash in Bank     Us:  136,265       Exeter:   1,273,755   

Total Assets Less Current Liabilities:    Us: - 4,489,388   Exeter: +2,052,045 

Debts (Creditors within 1 year)  Us 7,596,344    Exeter 2,202,777

Shareholder Funds   Us: -4,660,559    Exeter + 1,652,571

I have not cherry picked to suit, these are from the balance sheets.  Every single one we are not only getting beaten we are being thrashed.

So exactly how are Exeter - supporter owned, in a worse position than us with our want away land developer owners. Please please tell me

Pi55 poor attempt at a wind up.

Here is the link to the slides that were sent to WNC for the recent meeting

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/uploads/files/wnc-full-presentation.pdf

I must admit that seems very one sided!

Comparisons etc. found to work in favour.  

One thing I've always struggled to get my head round it the fascination of installing extra seats. I think your presentation states an attendance of c.65%, so what's the point in paying money to have these seats installed if they are never going to be sat in?

Executive boxes, what do we think the demand would be for these?

"We don't need a bigger capacity - we don't fill it."

Its not just about capacity its about flexibility. 

Remember the woeful attempts at sharing the south stand in the championship season because the stadium wasn't big enough?  You need to provide overflow areas in stadiums, 15% of the capacity for away fans - that takes it down for home fans. 

Also a capacity crowd requires a large away following - we've had many 6000 crowds over the years with little to no away support. Looking at the stats, it tells you we didn't fill the stadium - actually we filled our allocation.

MKDons have the capacity to give away tickets to youngsters to encourage support.

I hate sitting in the East stand and the North.  If there are no seats in the West, I really think twice about going.

Not a wind up, my opinion(I know you think other people should have these).
Talking of wind ups. Where you were before the Rochdale game?

I must admit that seems very one sided!

Comparisons etc. found to work in favour.  

One thing I've always struggled to get my head round it the fascination of installing extra seats. I think your presentation states an attendance of c.65%, so what's the point in paying money to have these seats installed if they are never going to be sat in?

Executive boxes, what do we think the demand would be for these?

Don't you know? If we build it they will come.

Interesting, I didn't realise people would physically refuse to go if for instance only the East stand front row was available.

I guess that's why the likes of theatres operate a tiered ticket structure. Maybe that should be considered to increase the 65% occupancy.

I must admit that seems very one sided!

Comparisons etc. found to work in favour.  

One thing I've always struggled to get my head round it the fascination of installing extra seats. I think your presentation states an attendance of c.65%, so what's the point in paying money to have these seats installed if they are never going to be sat in?

Executive boxes, what do we think the demand would be for these?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, they can’t all be correct though.
Got to the ground late and trying to find somewhere to bloody park…… are you still in the UK?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, they can’t all be correct though.
Got to the ground late and trying to find somewhere to bloody park…… are you still in the UK?

You'll be well fúcked when all of these extra fans start to turn up then(not).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, they can’t all be correct though.
Got to the ground late and trying to find somewhere to bloody park…… are you still in the UK?

Tocal ownership. I'm against fan ownership. If we happened to have a moneybags fan who wanted to buy and run the club then actually, brilliant, that's the best of both worlds. A ragtag collection of individuals coming together to pool their pennies would spell disaster though, especially if (and I'm genuinely sorry to say this) the current Trust were anywhere near it.

I continue to be amazed that some people think that if we were a fan run club the people running it would be someone recruited from the Job Centre. DC and KT have both employed qualified people for the key positions and the Trust would do exactly the same, just like all the other fan owned clubs  ::)

In 2018 Northants had a population of 747,622 which represented 1.33 % of the total for England (in fractions 1/73).

On that basis we ought to be able to sustain a top League 2 team with some ease (probably a lot better than that given the greater density and need for fewer teams in the large conurbations).

I think we're all aware of that, thanks. However, as everyone is at pains to point out, our CEO is given strategic direction by the owners. The strategic direction likely to come from the Trust would see us out of business in no time flat.

Is that a fact?

Moves and counter moves.
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/sport/football/cobblers-appoint-local-businessman-as-new-associate-director-3378717

Probably worth mentioning that said individual set himself up a new company just three weeks ago.... Dove Property and Developments Limited.....

And under tendering law he would not be allowed to tender for any contracts for NTFC Ltd. However it would not exclude him from tendering for contracts issued not directly involving NTFC Ltd. So one can possibly infer from this that contracts could be in the offing for any land developments.

Probably worth mentioning that said individual set himself up a new company just three weeks ago.... Dove Property and Developments Limited.....

As the land is held by and leased by County Developments Northampton Limited I guess this is a way round that particular issue.....?

Surely the Trust would be ecstatic that local businessmen are getting involved with the club.  Or is this not the right type?

I think we're all aware of that, thanks. However, as everyone is at pains to point out, our CEO is given strategic direction by the owners. The strategic direction likely to come from the Trust would see us out of business in no time flat.

I continue to be amazed that some people think that if we were a fan run club the people running it would be someone recruited from the Job Centre. DC and KT have both employed qualified people for the key positions and the Trust would do exactly the same, just like all the other fan owned clubs  ::)

There lies the problem. None running the Trust should be anywhere near the decision making. Who would be responsible for appointing a manager for example? The Trust board cannot even organise a meeting or a PowerPoint so who would be on the NTFC board? How and who would appoint the Directors?

Is there any need for that? Really?

The reason a lot of the teams that get lucky and get promoted to say the Championship then get relegated is because they don’t have the infrastructure in place to sustain that level.
Northampton if we made it to the Championship does have the support base to get 10,000 home fans if the ground would allow, add in the 2000+ away fans and hospitality better sponsorship and we would triple our income.

Yeah of course it would be a disaster, I mean KT has been a dab hand at appointing managers hasn't he?  After all he's onto his 6th appointment. The 5th one was a classic, 20 years as a manager and not one promotion.  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Obviously KT has Degrees in football management and club ownership, so is far more qualified than anyone from Northampton.

AGAIN ANOTHER REMINDER:  KT has made every decision, every presentation, every PR stunt with an annual income of approx £6m to use how he sees fit, the Trust have done all of their's on a budget of less than £10k, of which very very little of that has gone on marketing, website, presentations, graphic design etc etc. Yes I know it shows, and so do they, they are trying to improve that.

The Trust have not run up debts of £6m in 6 years with zero increase on the balance sheet (except debt of course),

Again look at the Exeter comparisions

Now what do you think motivates someone like me?

B00bs?

I can’t talk for the others but as for my post your point is what?
I just happened to make a connection between a new Associate director and a new development company….maybe redevelopment is closer than ever. Maybe it’s a sign of some imminent progress…joining the dots and all that.

What do you think I meant???

The Trust want a good deal for the football club in this one-off opportunity to move the club forward ie: the land deal.

They are not saying KT should not benefit, they are saying there are better options and opportunities

I don’t understand why there is an assumption that the the choice is binary between the Trust and the current owners. At the moment, KT and DB are the rightful owners. That’s whether you like it or not. Should that situation change, why is it inevitable that the Trust are the only choice. After all, they are hardly popular with the club staff, and by no means representative of the main body of support.

I do find it interesting though, that we are now seeing ownership coming out as a motivational factor behind their stanceThat just muddies the waters further. Because they will need the land as much as the next man to further the development. So how do we guarantee that in trying to stop KT and DB from allegedly profiteering, that some others (any interested party) don’t just have designs on the land and any potential that comes out of that.

Sp how much have the trust offered?

Because if the current owners don't get what they want from the council, with the debt that has been built up around the club no one else is going to bail the current owners out, and no one other than the Trust post apocalypse will want to go anywhere near it?
Just a guess.

Well… It’s a rather naive assumption. The Trust don’t have the funds to buy a half decent car let alone bail out a club millions in debt. So administrators would be looking to salvage what they can in terms of assets, of which none exist, so it would most likely mean starting from nothing outside the league. Unless of course some lunatic with millions fancies a pop. 

In that scenario, I’d favour a shot at it from those who are already running it. James Whiting and co are just as likely, if not more capable of bringing together a decent management team to bring us back out of the ashes. I can’t see what the Trust would offer that they need. James, Nick Ancell, Gareth Willsher and co have years of experience of running the club. The Trust bring nothing to the table in terms of finance or experience in that field.
 

Why so much negativity from your colleagues on Twitter do you think?

Is there any need for that? Really?

Do you see now where you are going wrong? An opinioin is just that, an opinion and every opinion is correct.
Your problem is that you think your opinions are fact.

Have your read the clubs Charter ?

Ahhh I see, every opinion is correct, no it might be correct in the eye of the author that doesn’t make it correct in the context to which it was commented.
I like to base my opinions on facts, they are nearly always correct.

Your opinion is correct wether you base it on facts or not as is evryone else's opinion.
As you always refuse to put any "facts" on here then you are posting an opinon which has just as much validity as all the opinions on here.

Opinion: An opinion is a judgement, viewpoint, or statement that is not conclusive, rather than facts, which are true statements.

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Taken from June 2020 accounts

Cash in Bank     Us:  136,265       Exeter:   1,273,755   

Total Assets Less Current Liabilities:    Us: - 4,489,388   Exeter: +2,052,045

Debts (Creditors within 1 year)  Us 7,596,344    Exeter 2,202,777

Shareholder Funds   Us: -4,660,559    Exeter + 1,652,571

I have not cherry picked to suit, these are from the balance sheets.  Every single one we are not only getting beaten we are being thrashed

Now Exeter even higher in the league  ;D

Ahhh I see, every opinion is correct, no it might be correct in the eye of the author that doesn’t make it correct in the context to which it was commented.
I like to base my opinions on facts, they are nearly always correct.

What are you thoughts on all this CW ??????????.

You said you couldn't meet me in the pub before the Rochdale games because you couldn't find a parking space, I assume that it was an adult who was driving, because by the idiocraty of your posts I don't think you are old enough to drive.

What are you thoughts on all this CW ??????????.

OK CW what and who would you like me to compare with?

Almost every club you compare us with we are failing. Did you go to little old FGR, who played us of the park, with gates of 2400 in the middle of nowhere

Next time your in the UK I’ll meet with you and that’s a promise!

You probably won’t want to be calling me names though.

I‘m sorry to be rude but presenting figures like this to try to illustrate comparisons is naive in the extreme but to indulge you a little -

What do you mean by assets - liquidity is the key here not the amount.
Creditors - who are they and how likely are they to call in their debt - a director loan to his/her own company is completely different to a debt to an independent 3rd party
I have no idea what share holder funds mean - perhaps you could explain because in many cases the higher the amount the more exposed an organisation is.

You've got to be fair Manny. For the best part of 2-3 years now, we had either those from the Trust, or a minority of very vocal Trust supporters/hangers on, promising us the big killer story. You very much included. During that time, all that the vast majority of the support have been guilty of, is waiting patiently for it to manifest. Sadly, I know just how hard some people have scrapped away tirelessly to present something that justifies the huge billing they give it… So don’t be surprised at all if absolutely zero credibility is given to those people. It’s not that we support KT. We just don’t have the pathological hatred that some do for him.

… & still you don’t address the question - are the Trust representing the democratic viewport their membership - we know they are representing your views and in the fullness of time that may prove to be correct it it’s not the question

You've got to be fair Manny. For the best part of 2-3 years now, we had either those from the Trust, or a minority of very vocal Trust supporters/hangers on, promising us the big killer story. You very much included. During that time, all that the vast majority of the support have been guilty of, is waiting patiently for it to manifest. Sadly, I know just how hard some people have scrapped away tirelessly to present something that justifies the huge billing they give it… So don’t be surprised at all if absolutely zero credibility is given to those people. It’s not that we support KT. We just don’t have the pathological hatred that some do for him.

I don’t want to get personal but if your views reflect the trust‘s fiscal understanding then a fan owned club led by the trust is not likely to have a happy ending - let’s leave it there - we both want the best for the club but will probably continue to differ on how to achieve it.

Tel, I don’t have hatred for KT at all, he’s a business man trying to make money, that’s fair enough, BUT when it’s at the expense of the club I support then that’s different.
I’ve said many times that I would like a fair deal for all the stakeholders, KT and DB included.
It’s all hypothetical at the moment until their is a deal the council likes.
I see nothing wrong with holding our owners to account and fully support it.

Ha ha that old chestnut, run away with your fingers in your ears.

Are you a Trust member CW? 

… & still you don’t address the question - are the Trust representing the democratic viewport their membership - we know they are representing your views and in the fullness of time that may prove to be correct it it’s not the question

Fûck me Dave you need to lighten up a bit mate, I’ll buy you a pint, how that sound?

No he wasn't there. It was a Trust board presentation and no other individuals were invited

Mine's a pint of the black stuff please.

I‘m still waiting for Manny to accept the offer of a drink in my backyard on 9th October

Mine's a pint of the black stuff please.

I‘m still waiting for Manny to accept the offer of a drink in my backyard on 9th October

Thanks CW, perhaps you could attend a board meeting and discuss some of these important issues further.

Ha ha that old chestnut, run away with your fingers in your ears.

Another discussion you have lost, sorry but in what planet or financial reckoning can you say that our owners and our football is in good condition???  I am not cherry picking facts, the facts are there, you really really really think it is better to rely on 1 75 year old non-football person who lives 4000 miles away, than 1000 lifelong supporters who live in the area (or have done)

TELL ME WHERE THIS £7M OF DEBT HAS BEEN SPENT, WHERE IT IS MUCH BETTER VALUE AND FINANCIAL ASTUTE?

Tell me how we are overall better off than Accrington, Plymouth, Exeter, FGR, Fleetwood, Peterborough, Luton, Millwall, Burnley, Lincoln, Oxford, Rochdale, Tranmere, Wycombe, etc etc etc

Tell me why I should be grateful we have KT and not Northampton owners?

That's all well and good Melly, but Exeter have more money in the bank than we do....

That’s an offer hard to refuse CW gives you the opportunity to put names to faces!

That's all well and good Melly, but Exeter have more money in the bank than we do....

Exeter is not a good example of fan ownership. As virtually all of their redevelopment has been bankrolled by outside agencies. So if in the case of the current owners leaving, and the Trust taking over, it would be a totally different situation. Exeter aside, as we won’t know how they fair until they have had to stand on their own two feet for some time. Fan ownership, as an expansion and progressive model, HAS NOT WORKED ANYWHERE…. So stop touting it as something that will progress NTFC.

In fairness, I'd say AFC Wimbledon's return to Plough Lane counts as a success story under fan ownership, not to mention their rise from nothing to a (just about) established League 1 side. They are an isolated example though and were coming from a place where they had absolutely nothing to lose.

The worrying thing is some people don’t know you are joking (I hope!)

In fairness, I'd say AFC Wimbledon's return to Plough Lane counts as a success story under fan ownership, not to mention their rise from nothing to a (just about) established League 1 side. They are an isolated example though and were coming from a place where they had absolutely nothing to lose.

In fairness, I'd say AFC Wimbledon's return to Plough Lane counts as a success story under fan ownership, not to mention their rise from nothing to a (just about) established League 1 side. They are an isolated example though and were coming from a place where they had absolutely nothing to lose.

I have seen a few comments but playing catchup so cant read all the posts. What was the point of the presentation? I missed the 'so what' at the end. Or was it just a chance to put all your grievances to the council without actually asking them to do anything? Are there any minutes or agreed actions after the meeting that can be shared?
These are genuine questions by the way.

Completely agree and I think it clearly illustrates fan ownership can ensure survival and a degree of Progression but to sustain Championship or higher presence require finance way beyond this - I personally don’t like it but that’s reality.

Don't worry, I was joking. On a serious note about the Exeter example, on a previous occasion when they were mentioned as a shining light I spent quite a bit of time looking at their financial results and found that a few bits didn't really stack up and weren't quite as rosy as they sounded once you scratched the surface. I can't remember the exact details and I'm buggered if I can find the post, so I don't know if a thread got deleted or something and frankly I don't have the time right now to redo the research, but I remember it really looked like a pretty short term sustainability piece that was propped up by a windfall that came from a player sale.

I have seen a few comments but playing catchup so cant read all the posts. What was the point of the presentation? I missed the 'so what' at the end. Or was it just a chance to put all your grievances to the council without actually asking them to do anything? Are there any minutes or agreed actions after the meeting that can be shared?
These are genuine questions by the way.

Exeter is not a good example of fan ownership. As virtually all of their redevelopment has been bankrolled by outside agencies. So if in the case of the current owners leaving, and the Trust taking over, it would be a totally different situation. Exeter aside, as we won’t know how they fair until they have had to stand on their own two feet for some time. Fan ownership, as an expansion and progressive model, HAS NOT WORKED ANYWHERE…. So stop touting it as something that will progress NTFC.

Well… I'm pretty sure they are sitting on millions of pounds of loans from Nick Robertson and MSP capital.  

No fan ownership model exist without significant external help… They also crowdfunded a huge amount of money. You don’t need a Trust to do that. Especially one that hasn't managed to raise significant money (relative to that needed in football) ever.

OkBOTN, now spending some time looking at NTFC's accounts and post your thoughts, I would be really interested to know your thoughts.

Can I give you my bank details so you can transfer any funds to me as apparently you think have money in the bank is a negative thing !!!   

The council meeting was for the Trust to air their concerns to the land deal in the main. Councils across the country help football clubs development, and obviously here they hold the future of NTFC in their hands.

There's plenty of hard working genuinely interested and skilled NTFC Fans who will help deliver that

So where's the money?
Re-acquiring is a way of saying we got them back without paying.
Why?
How come?
I wouldn't let someone take £6.68M from me and not return it.

 
Dear BACK OF THE NET,

Your diatribe fascinated me, so much to comment on (presuming you want comments after such negativity)

 

Yes life member and contribute further annually but I have written to the board expressing my concern on their approach and why I feel it is not in line with their stated democratic charter - I have acknowledged the good work they have done in the past and politely suggested how I would approach the current issue - I have yet to receive a reply

Let me stop you there. I don't really want a counter observation to every one of my observations about the ridiculous and nebulous presentation the Trust board put to the council, no.

What do I want, then?

• A financially secure football club playing entertaining football.
• A supporters trust that doesn't try to undermine the club at every turn, doing so without the approval or agreement of the fans it claims to represent.

And that's it. I'm a simple soul, really, and quite easily pleased. The odd promotion here and there would be quite nice too but isn't essential.

We're relatively secure as it stands. We don't owe money externally, all debts are to our owners. Would it be better if those debts weren't there? Of course, but they are there because that is how our owners have decided to structure the money they have put into the club. The only way we will be in trouble with those debts is if the owners decide to call it quits and walk away from the existing sunk costs, which is highly unlikely given how deep they are already.

The only scenario in which I see them walking away is if they are continually stymied in their attempts to redevelop the area.

I struggle to see how the Trust fail to see this as they continually attempt to stymie the owners' attempts to redevelop the area.

Worse still, they do so in all of our names and that, quite frankly, makes me rather angry with them.

The best outcome for all is if the Trust put aside their pipe-dreams & prejudices and work with both the club and the council to get the redevelopment over the line, leaving us with better (but realistic and sustainable) facilities, clear of debt (and yes, that means the owners getting their money back out of the proceeds) and an attractive proposition for any new owners coming in. When it looked like they were doing that I applauded the Trust. When they backpedalled a few months later, that was it for me.

By the way, you're right, I "don't do legal stuff" in the sense that I'm not legally trained. I do however do a lot of supplier negotiations and contract reviews, working closely with some top level legal professionals over the years.  Several of them have pointed out to me that I've missed my vocation, because apparently I have quite an eye for it!

One final point, if you are going to call someone out for pedantry, probably best not to point out that they were one out on a slide number.  ;)

I'm sorry BOTN, i'm going to challenge some of the above!!

First bit....we all want a financially secure football club playing entertaining football!
Second bit though, I really don't believe that the Trust are trying to undermine the club at every turn. Sure, there are some differences of opinion but people on both sides of the argument have got to get away from the thought there it is actually one side or another.....we (the supporters, Trust and Club all want the same thing....namely point one as you mentioned!

I don't doubt that we all want broadly the same thing, we just disagree on the roadmap of how to get there. I'm afraid that, in my perception at least, the Trust are undermining the club at every turn. Whether they mean to or not is open to debate, but I do think the Trust are so blinkered they just see the path they want to tread and are blissfully unaware of the mess they are leaving in their trail.

You put that "we don't owe money externally"....... well are you sure on that? We can all hope that is the case, but the last set of published accounts showed for example that the club owed over £562,000 in taxation and social security.... that was up from £209k the previous year.

Now, we may owe nothing, we may owe more, but its just plain wrong to state that "we don't owe money externally"...unless you know it to be fact.

Fair point. All companies owe money at some point and of course we have liabilities outside the club. The fact that no one is jumping up and down demanding payment on anything makes me think any money we owe is to an agreed schedule, although for all we know HMRC might come knocking on the door tomorrow! The point I was trying to make is that the fuss is being made about the 6 point whatever million in the accounts owed as director loans - and that doesn't put us at any material risk. You're right though, I should be more circumspect in my phrasing there.

In one sentence you suggest that the owners will not walk away considering how deep they are in...then in the next you suggest that they may walk away because the Trust are stymying their redevelopment efforts.....which is it? Do you think they will walk or will they not?

In fairness, I didn't say they "will not" walk away, I said I think it's highly unlikely that they will. I don't know how deep their pockets are or how long their patience is. As with any potential debtors coming out of the woodwork at any point, our owners could just say "bollocks to this" at any point. As I said, I don't think they will any time soon, but the longer this goes on then I think the odds must shorten.

As for "attempts to redevelop the area".....do you know what those plans for the area are? I don't....other than a finished stand and a car park....thats about all that has been released publicly. As far as that particular part of the plan goes the only sticking point is "who pays for it?" In 2015 we were told about the supposed ringfenced money, in 2018 we were told that the leases were holding things up....now in 2021 it's the Trust putting a blocker on things?

I think this is where we disagree. I'd be happy with a finished stand and a car park. If that has a bloody great row of warehouses next to it then so be it. I'm a pragmatist, things need to be paid for from somewhere and whatever the enabling development is, I'm happy for it to be done. I also think it's overplaying the Trust's significance to think they have the power to block anything, but they are the proverbial noisy neighbour, making complaints and slowing things down.

The only things we know for sure are that there is almost £7m leveraged against the club owed to its owners in the form of debt. The plans put to the Council (the same as the plans put to the old NBC) would see a finished stand and not a lot else. The plans that are with WNC now seek guarantees that up to £3m of the cost of the stand (plus another substantial sum on top to cover expenses) are paid back to the owners before the council sees a penny. That would appear to be the sticking point....not a Powerpoint presentation made to the Council at the meeting that the Council requested with The Trust.
Then the fear is that the next £7m plus would clear the debt to the current owners (Mr and Mrs Bower by the way...i'm not talking about Kelvin here) before the possibility that a further penny from this deal would see its way into the club coffers for use on other projects. I say the fear.....because in reality nobody knows. You seem to be comfortable with that scenario playing out...as is your right......i'm not comfortable.....as is my right too!

You're right, I am comfortable with this. I think this is another one where we have diametrically opposed viewpoints. The owners put the money in, they are doing all the work to get whatever the deal turns out to be with the council pushed through, they should be the ones to reap the rewards. Yes, I'd love it if there was a 60/20/20 cut of the profits between the owners, the council and the club, but at the end of the day that's out of our control, and so should it be because the deal is between the owners and the council; the club (and certainly the supporters) aren't really any part of it (except as tax payers getting value for money from the council's cut!).

I think what none of us know is the magnitude of the surrounding development. If we're talking a profit of, say, £10m then it's unreasonable for the owners to expect the loans repaid before any share of profits is calculated. If we're talking £50m+ then actually, I think that's fair enough. Without knowing the sums of money we're talking about, I think it's difficult to judge.

The council cannot ignore an application,however.
If the club seeks to develop the land the application has to be considered. If the application is rejected the club can appeal  and it may be subject to a review ourside the control of the Council. It cannot be rejected on ideology grounds alone.It would be far better that all parties worked together to maximise the return for both the ownwers and the Football Club

At least we have (in the main) balanced views and can substantiate and back up our thoughts and feelings......nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate.....rather that than silly sniping like others do!

That last paragraph of yours is a significant point.....nobody knows for sure. I do think though that the actual figure is likely to be much nearer the lower end of the scale, and tha'ts based on the first part of any return finding its way back to the clubs owners, the relative land prices, the type of development on that land (warehousing), and the cost of remediating the bulk of the land to make it fit for development in the first place.

A best guess is that actually we are at the point where perhaps the owners are in "deep enough" and will not see a return on any further money they "invest"....therefore we may have reached the end of the Bowers propping up the club to the tune of 500k to £1m a season. Where that leads us is another unknown.

As for the deal.....and this is partly with a bit of background knowledge and also with a bit of realism......I think its as far away as ever.....certainly with what's on the table at the moment. I have yet to see or hear of Sixfields being discussed at any Council Cabinet or sub-cabinet committee meeting. It certainly does not appear on the agenda anywhere, and I don't think its the priority of a newly formed council trying to right the wrongs of its predecessor......they have a lot bigger fish to fry at the moment...... with or without any perceived "Trust stymying" along the way. Just my thoughts there......not a matter of facts!  ;)

How long is a fair amount of time?  Exeter supporters have owned their club since 2003. They had a windfall playing Man U, they were in the process of a bond scheme, which they cancelled as the Man U windfall meant they could move forward without it.

So fan ownership did't help at Wycombe? Sure Wycombe were in the Championship very very recently, remind me when was we there last?

If KT was to remain here, what do you think our highest league position would be?  Would he take us to the Championship, when he could hardly wait for us to return to L2.

I'm sorry BOTN, i'm going to challenge some of the above!!

First bit....we all want a financially secure football club playing entertaining football!
Second bit though, I really don't believe that the Trust are trying to undermine the club at every turn.

So the suggestion that someone from the Trust went to the press to tip them off about some of KT/DB's business dealings is untrue is it?

So holding an open meeting in a local hotel about fan ownership, with the Trust at the forefront of that ownership, doesn’t strike you as undermining a clubs current owners.

I’m not taking sides here, because I’m absolutely sure you and others could equally share experiences where the Trust could have been on the receiving end of unnecessary treatment. But there is no way you are going to convince anyone, that you are as bad as each other. That’s why everyone's bored stiff with you all..

Why would two sides try and convince others that they are as bad as each other? That would make for an interesting election campaign!

So the suggestion that someone from the Trust went to the press to tip them off about some of KT/DB's business dealings is untrue is it?

So holding an open meeting in a local hotel about fan ownership, with the Trust at the forefront of that ownership, doesn’t strike you as undermining a clubs current owners.

I’m not taking sides here, because I’m absolutely sure you and others could equally share experiences where the Trust could have been on the receiving end of unnecessary treatment. But there is no way you are going to convince anyone, that you are as bad as each other. That’s why everyone's bored stiff with you all..

The only things we know for sure are that there is almost £7m leveraged against the club owed to its owners in the form of debt. The plans put to the Council (the same as the plans put to the old NBC) would see a finished stand and not a lot else. The plans that are with WNC now seek guarantees that up to £3m of the cost of the stand (plus another substantial sum on top to cover expenses) are paid back to the owners before the council sees a penny. That would appear to be the sticking point....not a Powerpoint presentation made to the Council at the meeting that the Council requested with The Trust.
Then the fear is that the next £7m plus would clear the debt to the current owners (Mr and Mrs Bower by the way...i'm not talking about Kelvin here) before the possibility that a further penny from this deal would see its way into the club coffers for use on other projects. I say the fear.....because in reality nobody knows. You seem to be comfortable with that scenario playing out...as is your right......i'm not comfortable.....as is my right too!

I guess your last sentence kind of sums up the current issue a lot of people have with the trust.  We all have a right to have our opinion but unless you are on the board of the trust and it aligns with them it's irrelevant is it not?  I know you will say this isn't the case but there are plenty who disagree with you and the trust.  They simply either are pushed aside as Trust bashing or ignored.  How is the opposing view ever considered/respresented?  How do trust board members put their own opinions to one side and listen to the membership or wider fan base?

A prime example is the offer of a meeting instead of the written answers scenario of which many were in favour including a lot of ex board members who couldn't understand the reason for declining.

Do you think this development decision is a massive defining moment in the future of this club?  Could a negative outcome for the owners potentially jeopardise the future of this club?

Perhaps you can also answer something else I feel has never been given a satisfactory detailed answer from anyone from a Trust perspective.  It's approx a year ago that the Trust publicly backed this development deal.  By the Trusts own admission the deal on the table is the same, the plans are the same.  The Trust had grave concerns around the Chinese deal and our current owners behaviour in that deal which they raised with the club just a month prior.  Yet shortly after they backed this deal.  How did that even happen if it really is as bad a deal as you are clearly saying, bad for the future of the club and offering such a poor basic development of the East stand.

Where does it say that other opinion is irrelevant? I've posted that everyone is entitled to their views......whether I agree with them or not is down to me! The fact I am engaging in a civil conversation with that particular poster should show that I don't actually find his opinion or thoughts irrelevant. I am listening to the membership or wider fanbase, I have no idea if BOTN is a Trust member or not...it doesn't matter to me!

The meeting offer....ah yes! Its true that the club invited questions from the Trust with regards to the deal and other issues. The club never announced that they invited the questions did they? So the "25 questions" were asked, and eventually the club did come back and offer a zoom meeting which "could possibly be attended by the Trust board, Trust members or even open it up to all fans" as kind of an open forum. It was felt that this scenario was not the right way to go forward at that particular point in time.....If the club had answered all or even some of the questions, THEN there could have been an open forum or similar to discuss......but that would have been for further down the line. Thats a decision that was made.

Yes, definitely the development is a defining moment in the clubs history.....that's why it has to be done right. The club has already been stung twice in this saga *Cardoza and the LXB scheme many moons ago, and then the missing millions of 2013-2015). Yes too, a negative outcome for the owners could jeopardize the club.....thats entirely the point! The owners have stacked £7m of debt against the club, the only way they are going to get that back is from a deal with the Council.....all their eggs in one basket! The council and only the council will decide whether this deal goes through.  This line from the Club's presentation is rather concerning don't you think?? Football club will take on any development risk

The last part.....again, I was not around then, but from what i've been told the Trust gave their CONDITIONAL backing to the deal, based on the (vague) information provided at the time. There weren't even any pictures of a stand or a car park at that time! The Trust board always wanted more detail as to what was planned and what was proposed. Those proposals only came to light when the club made its "show and tell" presentation back in June.

The Chinese deal....again, at the time limited information was available. As time has passed further information has been gained which changed the views as to the whole deal. ie it was not known at the time about the "second sale" of the shares......the second 40%. I'm not sure of the timeframes but it's clear that what actually took place is at odds with what was actually reported.

What was the LXB scheme GPC? I've read pretty much everything this board has offered for years but don't once remember it being raised before.

That was retail development, wasn't it?

So bored you just can’t resist posting?

I was not around for either of the things you claim happened….from what I’ve been told in regards to the first, no….it was actually the press approaching the Trust, not the other way round. There was a sniff of a story which had surfaced….who knows from where and by who.

As for your second claim, yes there was a meeting, but it’s a matter of individual feeling whether people feel it is ‘undermining the club’ or not. There is, and this is not in dispute, a general push to have more fan involvement and make clubs more accountable to their fans and their communities….the fan led, government commissioned report will be out soon…..

Whilst you’re around (again)…..what are your thoughts on the plans for the East stand?

You can simply answer without being unnecessarily rude. I appreciate that I’m hardly flavour of the month with the some elements of the Trust. That doesn’t make me either wrong, or less entitled to an opinion.

I’m not sure we are going to agree about the reporter. Mainly because at one point that was not the version given to me at all. But we'll never know.

I think we both know, that if you owned a business and a bunch of hobbyist turned up down the road to hold a public meeting, suggesting you should hand it over for free, so they can do it properly. I be really surprised if you didn’t find that a tad undermining.

My thoughts on the East Stand development vary, depending on which version of events you believe. If I listen to the Trust boards version of the intended design, then I’m completely on board with them, if an attempt is made to implement that plan by the club. I can assure you, I will oppose it with everything I can throw it.

However, and as everyone should, I have also heard the clubs version of events due to unfold. If their interpretation comes to fruition, I don’t see any issue with it at all.

Through my work and in general I have learnt to keep a balanced view as much as I can. My understanding of the East stand debacle, it that the Trust have decided to air their view. Where as the club holds a very different version of things. At the moment I need to forage a bit more.

My recollection is pretty vague, but I believe it included buying the land on which the cinema, Burger King etc stands on and in operating everything into a grand retail scheme yes.

LXB went on to develop Rushden Lakes…..!

EDIT: From 2007...... https://northampton.vitalfootball.co.uk/a-plot-to-rival-the-godfather/

Unnecessarily rude? Personally I didn't think I was being but apologies if any distress was caused. Everyone is entitled to an opinion....i've made that clear already...and no, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong, nor does it make you right. An opinion is just that...an opinion.

I asked the question about your views regarding the East Stand plans....because i'd seen a post made by you (or maybe someone using your name!) on Facebook last Thursday which I've got to admit took me by surprise! Certainly not one of someone who claims to be "bored" with it all.

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

Well done to the Trust, looks like they’ve really got the current owners on the back foot.
Undecided, 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

Where does it say that other opinion is irrelevant? I've posted that everyone is entitled to their views......whether I agree with them or not is down to me! The fact I am engaging in a civil conversation with that particular poster should show that I don't actually find his opinion or thoughts irrelevant. I am listening to the membership or wider fanbase, I have no idea if BOTN is a Trust member or not...it doesn't matter to me!

I’m not bored with constructive debate. What frustrates me is that I could spend hours listening to the Trusts interpretation of the situation and come away thinking they have a point. Half an hour later, I can spend time listening to the clubs interpretation of events and feel equally compelled to believe them. I know, because I have done this frequently. In fact, I think I am one of a very small minority who actually challenge all involved.

The truth about the Trust is simple. You can’t fight on any level with an olive branch in one hand, and a baseball bat in the other. One minute it looks like serious attempts at constructive dialogue are on the table, only to find next minute it is soured by an underlying resentment, mistrust and  dislike for the current set up. That is absolutely how is comes across to most.

Then you have the approach from the club, which at best seems aloof, and at worst ambivalent and arrogant at times towards its support.

I have always been a huge advocate of openness. Both the Trust, council and the club have shown astonishing disregard in this area. I still firmly believe that all parties should submit to the arranging of an open public forum, with an independent individual or body asking the questions. The questions should be generated from supporters, who have no affiliation with any of the parties. The first part of the open debate should be pre submitted without any of the parties seeing them prior to the meeting. With the council, the Trust and the Club all in one place, it would offer those of us who remain undecided the chance to scrutinise all involved openly. Perhaps once the agreed amount of pre submitted questions are answered, those involved might be open to a 30-60 minute open Q&A session…..

Do you think this is something the Trust would be interested in doing?

A simple question to the Trust board.

As you represent your Cobblers supporting members, what percentage want a fan owned club?

A simple question to the Trust board.

As you represent your Cobblers supporting members, what percentage want a fan owned club?

How does Sixfields currently make you feel?  Anyone?

At home.

I think the most important question is what do the Council want? They have the power and make the decision what happens to the club.

Problem is very few fans know or care what could happen to our club (as long as it survives) let alone actually understand it.

Do you think we are better off owned by one 75 year old property investor living in Dubai or owned by 100's of fans and businesses, who quite possibly have more money together than that one owner.

Also just to remind everyone, the club has approx £6.5m in operating income each year before any outside investment. You then need anything from £0 to £100m depending on your ambitions to move forward / bad business practices / how much tax free debt you want to 'invest' into the business.

If you had 2000 fans paying for one extra imaginary home game £20 per month = £40,000 per month x 12 = £480k per year, and that is before asking businesses for say £100 per month. IF the club could benefit from the land deal to say £5m as a starting point to develop Sixfields (other investments / grants etc could top this up)  then would you agree this could start exciting fans to what might be possible.

What stuck me at FGR was how clean and tidy the place looked, plus the digital signage. Strange mix of old ground feel (lots of standing and barriers) with modern digital effects.

How does Sixfields currently make you feel?  Anyone?

If you had 2000 fans paying for one extra imaginary home game £20 per month = £40,000 per month x 12 = £480k per year, and that is before asking businesses for say £100 per month. IF the club could benefit from the land deal to say £5m as a starting point to develop Sixfields (other investments / grants etc could top this up)  then would you agree this could start exciting fans to what might be possible.

So do it then.  No more talking, no more presentations, no more random figures plucked from nowhere....prove it by doing it.

There is nothing and has been nothing stopping the Trust and individuals like yourselves from starting a foundation over the last 3/4 years.  There are no barriers currently.

I read the Trusts presentation to the council and think great I'm in but they then provide not a shred of evidence of how it will be achieved, show no practical experience of having delivered anything over the last 5 years.  We get a whos who of the great and good on the Trust Board and there are some impressive people involved.  I then I think what have all these impressive individuals achieved/delivered over the last 5 years for it's membership/the fans?  What physical evidence do I have to believe they/you could deliver anything like what you claim is required.

We can all sell someone a dream.  Time to stop talking about it and do it!

So do it then.  No more talking, no more presentations, no more random figures plucked from nowhere....prove it by doing it.

There is nothing and has been nothing stopping the Trust and individuals like yourselves from starting a foundation over the last 3/4 years.  There are no barriers currently.

I read the Trusts presentation to the council and think great I'm in but they then provide not a shred of evidence of how it will be achieved, show no practical experience of having delivered anything over the last 5 years.  We get a whos who of the great and good on the Trust Board and there are some impressive people involved.  I then I think what have all these impressive individuals achieved/delivered over the last 5 years for it's membership/the fans?  What physical evidence do I have to believe they/you could deliver anything like what you claim is required.

We can all sell someone a dream.  Time to stop talking about it and do it!

Agree MC Hammer and have said similar in a different way that until there is something tangible with names, faces, credential etc then the answer to randoms question will be One 75 year old man. Its not ideal, and would love it to be owned and ran by local business leaders (fans, of which I am one, running the club still scares me) but at the moment there isn't anything to analyse properly. Unless the Trust have changed their stance recently, I think they said they were NOT interested in a fan owned club unless there was no other alternative. I struggle to comprehend that some people automatically think that KT & DB can run a Football Club better than, say, a local Corporate Banker and a local business owner. They didn't do a course on "how to run o football club". I think you can only judge people who run clubs on their results, which in our case, are not too impressive, debts in creased by over £1M per year with very limited progress on or off the field. It's not setting the bar very high is it ?

The closest we have come is the New Hotel End. Can any one involved give an update? Not a dig as I know the next steps was feasibility studies and investigations etc but would be good to see / hear how they are progressing.   I heard the the New Hotel End asked the club for a small figure to get some drawings done but the request was refused. Let me state again, this is just what I heard, no guarantee's on how true it is.

I think the most important question is what do the Council want? They have the power and make the decision what happens to the club.

A simple question to the Trust board.

As you represent your Cobblers supporting members, what percentage want a fan owned club?

Well ain’t that the funniest thing. You and the Trust board are repeating exactly what I have been saying for years. That the key player is the council. As I used to say to Vintage.. You know it makes sense, listening to me.   8) :P

Well ain’t that the funniest thing. You and the Trust board are repeating exactly what I have been saying for years. That the key player is the council. As I used to say to Vintage.. You know it makes sense, listening to me.   8) :P

The Trust had contact with about 800 fans who were polled and I think 72% expressed an interest in continued investigation of fan ownership. Hope that answers your question.

Thank you.
As one of the fans in the 72%, my caveat is 'as a last resort!'

I feel a consortium of local business people, with a Trust involvement, would be the best way to raise the substantial money involved NOT fans on their own.

So do it then.  No more talking, no more presentations, no more random figures plucked from nowhere....prove it by doing it.

There is nothing and has been nothing stopping the Trust and individuals like yourselves from starting a foundation over the last 3/4 years.  There are no barriers currently.

I read the Trusts presentation to the council and think great I'm in but they then provide not a shred of evidence of how it will be achieved, show no practical experience of having delivered anything over the last 5 years.  We get a whos who of the great and good on the Trust Board and there are some impressive people involved.  I then I think what have all these impressive individuals achieved/delivered over the last 5 years for it's membership/the fans?  What physical evidence do I have to believe they/you could deliver anything like what you claim is required.

We can all sell someone a dream.  Time to stop talking about it and do it!

Let me get this straight, "the Trust board are repeating exactly what you have been saying for years" but you always disagree with everything anyone "associated" with the Trust posts. So really, you are disagreeing with yourself !!  ;D ???

The Trust want a good deal for the football club in this one-off opportunity to move the club forward ie: the land deal.

They are not saying KT should not benefit, they are saying there are better options and opportunities

As a member of the Trust board, please could you enlighten us with your real name?

The Trust had contact with about 800 fans who were polled and I think 72% expressed an interest in continued investigation of fan ownership. Hope that answers your question.

No sure what you want to see my the way of evidence? Its been done at other clubs, it's not rocket science or reinventing the wheel.

Who? I've said for a long time that to get the rest of us on board we need to know who these people are!

Been told several times it wont be the Trust board or the passionate ones on here, it will be skilled business people etc, but who are they?

That poll was demonstrated to be not worth the paper it was written on because of the 'loaded' questions that could be interpreted to say whatever The Trust wanted them to say.

I find it hard to believe that nobody seems to even know who random is let alone the rest of the board who post anon on here.
The trust go on about the club hiding or not having details of the deal but at least we know who the chairman is....

The Trust had contact with about 800 fans who were polled and I think 72% expressed an interest in continued investigation of fan ownership. Hope that answers your question.

Again, why what different does it make on here?

MC let me go back over your posts and see if you said the same with Cardoza, CDNL, and the current owners.

Doesn't the fact that the Trust are at least trying to want something to happen for our football club, as opposed to owners who promise much and after 10 years (DC & DB) have delivered a complete an utter mess, mean anything to you.

Will you personally gain from KT's land deal?  What's in it for you? Why are you so anti the supporters Trust??

6 long years ago your saviour KT rode in to town with his £4m promise, and today we are no closer, yet all you can do is post negatively about supporters who care about the medium-term of their football club.

The club with all it's resources produce an extremely basic, no information, no details on anything, and you don't utter one word !!!!

I feel as a representative of the trust, we should understand who we're talking to.
I've been popped at this week by Tony Clarke ex MP for daring to ask if the trust had a view on the new board appt at NTFC.
In the spirit of showing openness, why wouldn't you want to be identified?

Glen Cousner

Hmmm speed of response a bit slower than to my original question.

I find it hard to believe that nobody seems to even know who random is let alone the rest of the board who post anon on here.
The trust go on about the club hiding or not having details of the deal but at least we know who the chairman is....

But you don't know who the Trust chairman is?..
If the Chairman of the football club or a representative of posted anonymously on here would you take a similarly dim view, and can you be sure that they don't?

Let me get this straight, "the Trust board are repeating exactly what you have been saying for years" but you always disagree with everything anyone "associated" with the Trust posts. So really, you are disagreeing with yourself !!  ;D ???

Who do you think posts on here from the club and under which name?

Gareth Willshere and James Whiting.

Let me get this straight, "the Trust board are repeating exactly what you have been saying for years" but you always disagree with everything anyone "associated" with the Trust posts. So really, you are disagreeing with yourself !!  ;D ???

Gareth Willshere and James Whiting.

Who do you think posts on here from the club and under which name?

I only disagreed up to this point. As you will see if you look back on most of my posts on the matter I constantly advocated lobbying the council for a resolution. I stated repeatedly, that as the lease holders they hold the cards. Take a look Roger. You’ll see for yourself. So I am not disagreeing with recent activity, because it’s what I said they should have done from the start.

If your not happy with the state of play, you always chase the landlord not the tenant. Equally if you want to ensure appropriate future use of the property, why the fcuk would you bang at someone who doesn’t even own it, namely KT and DB.

It’s  ridiculous and childish to say I disagree with everything the Trust do. I only disagree with their approach to the whole fan ownership and the lack of democracy and transparency in their dealings on this issue. I hope that clears up some of yours and their paranoia surrounding my posts.

As a member of the Trust board, please could you enlighten us with your real name?

Really ? Why should he reveal his name if he doesn't want to ? Or lets go the whole hog and EVERYBODY post using their real name.

You will be aware however that the Council cannot lease property to a third party and then refuse planning permission without a very good reason

None of the senior off field management do but Jon Brady posts under the name Melbourne Cobbler.  Hiding in plain sight. ;D

And I would agree with you if that were the direction we were heading. But as I said, the "Club" want to buy the freehold of the land, and then sell it off parcel by parcel to developers who will then themselves apply for their respective permissions.

From the official site "• The preferred deal for the football club is an Option Agreement with WNC to enable the club to buy the freehold CDNL land with the option only being exercised when the East Stand is complete"

Is it only me who feels slightly uneasy about the fact that "The Football Club" (which is being run to tight budgets when it comes to wages and transfer revenue for example)  is suddenly going to be in a position to pay out millions of pounds to the Council to buy some land and then "• Football club will take on any development risk"

I thought Jon Brady posted under the name of Backofthenet....the football coaching outfit he was head coach of!  ;D

Really ? Why should he reveal his name if he doesn't want to ? Or lets go the whole hog and EVERYBODY post using their real name.

I am Damo Suzuki.

Gareth Willshere and James Whiting.

Unless the Trust have changed their stance recently, I think they said they were NOT interested in a fan owned club unless there was no other alternative. I struggle to comprehend that some people automatically think that KT & DB can run a Football Club better than, say, a local Corporate Banker and a local business owner. They didn't do a course on "how to run o football club". I think you can only judge people who run clubs on their results, which in our case, are not too impressive, debts in creased by over £1M per year with very limited progress on or off the field. It's not setting the bar very high is it ?

100% I would support the buyout by local successful business man / banker. As long as there wasn't any evidence or corruption (see Darlington) then I don't see any fan that wouldn't want that. A Jack Walker type situation must be the ideal for any fan. But who are they and where are they? Have the Trust approached anyone? I know there was talk of local business men ready to buy the club before KT but my recollection, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was very much a short term rescue until someone else could be found.
If that is the preferred route and something the Trust want to pursue and sell the benefits of the club to a local individual or consortium then that's their prerogative and the sort of thing I would think they should maybe be doing. But what isn't needed is the mud slinging in both directions, the accusations / insinuations and the quicker they drop the fanciful opinion the club should be sold debt free for £1 the better. 

So to prevent further back and forth.... there is currently no one on standby to buy the club, nor is there anyone putting a proposal together that KT and DB can consider

So to prevent further back and forth.... there is currently no one on standby to buy the club, nor is there anyone putting a proposal together that KT and DB can consider

Gareth Willshere and James Whiting.

I'm James Whiting and so is my wife.

Before KT & DB bought the club there was lots of other people interested in buying it, but the "Ring fenced" money to complete the East won the day. It would be pointless for the Trust "to pursue and sell the benefits of the club to a local individual or consortium" because NTFC is in debt to the tune of £7M and no one will take on a business with that sort of debt. Which was exactly the case with KT & DB who walked away when they thought they would be stuck with the £10M loan debt, but they were back in when NBC and the Trust brokered a deal where they got it for £1 and virtually debt free. KT's exact words, at the time, were "There would be a queue 40 deep to get the club with the deal we did"

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/our-board

Shocker....no one wants to buy a business (mainly running at a loss) in £7m of debt with no assets.

Can’t lose the anonymity on here. I’ve thought about meeting up with a load of contributors the next time I’m over. The trouble is as soon as that happens all of the social niceties, tactfulness and diplomacy kick in and the whole dynamic of the site would be lost forever. No more brutal honesty, just a load of pleasantries and treading on egg shells. Not for me thank you.

Jon Brady

Jon please can you play Etete and Kabamba up front Satdy.

I think I’m qualified to answer for Manny - he feels BAS is an up and coming star and requires patience from the more critical of fans as he develops his game.

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/our-board

Updated:
https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/our-board
Thank you... ;)

I have a sneaking feeling that we might have a cuckoo in the nest… If my sources are right. There’s a Liverpool fan who has infiltrated the ranks 😀😀.

That’s it. They’re dead to me 😀

I'm sure Bob Souster is a perfectly decent chap but he has the hairstyle of a man that's not aware of conventional social norms.

I'm sure Bob Souster is a perfectly decent chap but he has the hairstyle of a man that's not aware of conventional social norms.

Top lad Rob… But he does have the look of a Bullseye contestant..

Not sure who Bob Souster is but think I can guess from the photos. Definately a Bullseye contestant or even presenter. :D

I am sure Bob Souster is;

Super
Smashing, and
Great

 ;D

Just read the latest Trust update.
Sounds the first meeting with the councilors went well and the start of a new chapter. Look forward to reading more about all parties working inclusively and collaboratively for the benefit of the club and fans.