You know I agree McHammer,  and the Trust is actively arranging a couple of such projects.

Try reading the letter from a more neutral standpoint rather than an anti-Trust bias

The Trust has received feedback from several members already stating the letter is "excellent" so its in the eye of the beholder I suppose

personally I would like nothing more to move the conversation forward with both club and council, however those parties have millions at stake and have previously showed zero interest in considering neither the fans nor the people of Northampton

Why the council are so desperate to sell 20 acres of prime land for £2m in the first place is beyond me although not that desperate to accept £3m for less land !  

Never once has there been talk to actually create something special on that land or take advantage of the fact we have 3 top sports clubs (who all need a bit of help), no its quick and easy warehousing, and NINE of them to boot.

I read every communication with an open mind unlike yourself.  I gave my personal thoughts to Bhyll on why I thought it was "more of the same". I've spent the whole time since the AGM waiting to see something different from the Trust.  An engagement with the fans.  A supporter project.  A building of bridges.  Just a fresh approach that maybe people could get behind gradually.

Why would someone anti-trust want the Trust to be better or even make suggestions on how to be better?  I'm not anti-trust I'm just anti the approach SOME of the board, including yourself, take in running the Trust.  I'm also anti the lack of accountability SOME of you take for your actions.

Tell me about the couple of projects the board are working on regarding diversity.  Give me some detail.

What progress if any has been made on the Infrastructure Foundation?

I read the minutes of the Trust board meetings and it just honestly feels like not much is happening or changing.  Then the letter appears and you pop up on here and it's just the same cycle repeating itself.

I am sure it is aimed at the Trust but you do know that Cilldara and KT/DB were in talks for 6 months about the land and club, which obviously has never been mentioned by KT

So the Trust agreed to possibly partner with Cilldara to protect the ACV land and see what would be possible for the future of the club (and land)

KT has peddled the line that we were working against the club, nothing is further from the truth, it might not have been our preffered partner but KT & his mates had already scared off a very local, successful and charitable company we had partnered with.

You and no one else have any evidence or idea of what exactly would have happened if things had progressed, yet it is used as if it would have destroyed the club.

Really ?  You think someone like the Trust Chair, Andy Roberts, someone who has written and published two books on his beloved NTFC would do anything to destroy the club?  Really?

You believe more in two people who live a combined 7000 miles away from the town over a group of people who have spend decades and £10,000s following NTFC, believe their intentions for NTFC are great ?  Really?

Stop misrepresenting the facts.  It does you no favours.

There's no possibly about it.  The Trust did partner with Cilldara.  Your intention may have been a misguided attempt to gain control of the Running Track Land, however, the idea that would have not had consequences for the club is ridiculous.

You agreed a Head Of Terms with Cilldara that would have given them first refusal on buying the running track land.  How is that in the clubs best interest?

Your deal would have seen the rest of the devlopment land stripped away to Cilldara who were the competing bidder to the football club with no benefit from this land going to the club.  How was the East Stand getting finished under your deal?  Be specific but more importantly honest.

By working against the owners you were by association working against the club as it's the clubs finances that would have been damaged.

You also did all this in complete secrecy from even your membership you represent.

The Trust Board were either completely aware of this and the consequences but did it anyway (which is true).  Or you made decisions without fully understanding the consequences of your actions.  Either way you were failing in your main duty of protecting the football club.

Thank you.

I have to say of all the stats I've researched, both for my own amusement and at the behest of others, these have provided the most astonishing of results. You never know where they will lead when you start out and although I did get a inkling that we hadn't been at our best in my time watching the Cobblers after big wins, I too remembered the Bristol City/Bury games, I never for one moment thought it was as bad as it was. We've not just been poor, we've been club record breaking poor. How does that happen? Beats me.

No problem. 

Genuinely thought it was interesting.  Initially I was thinking it would surely depend on the quality of opposition but after more thought it just didn't make any sense to think that.  Any team capable of winning by 6, 7 or 8 would surely be capable of getting some kind of results out of subsequent matches irrespective of opposition.

It also reminded me of a podcast I recently listened to with Ian Wright.  He talked about Liverpool beating Palace 9-0, which as an aside was one of the best team performances I have ever watched and yet Palace beat Liverpool later that season in an FA Cup Semi.

It's like Groundhog day isn't it.

I wonder when the self awareness will ever kick in.  I mean literally stating that fans arguing amongst themselves only benefits the owners...while proceeding to argue with other fans!

Without a hint of irony, asking supporters for a list of questions he will put forward without it even occurring that he could have done that in the first place.

Build some bridges for everyones sake and break this cycle.  All you are achieving at the moment is preparing a list of "I told you so" if it all goes pear shaped.

Maybe YOU not having answers to any of the many questions you listed is just as much, if not more, of an indictment on YOU than those you continually choose to criticise.

Completely agree with most of what has already been said.  Brilliant away day for us.  Thought the support was excellent for us as well.  Far more noise than expected from the number of us that made it.

Really good performance against a decent side.  The pressing and energy from the front was superb all night and led to both goals.  Feels like Brady has stumbled on the right formation and the right people in the respective positions.  Really liking Bowies energy up top and he clearly has the finishing ability if given the chance though plenty to also improve on for him.  I thought Sherring was immense at the back and having a midfield of Sowerby and McWilliams giving a foundation for Leonard to apply his quality further up the field works brilliantly.

Still a little nervous about our keeper but he did well last night.

Just brilliant to see such a big performance in a match where we didn't expect anything.

If we can keep the majority of those players that played last night fit and available we will be fine.  (I realise that last bit is unlikely but didn't want to end on a negative)   

Are we unanimous in accepting this was a bit premature then?

Short term memories for most football fans.  Get stuffed by Pompey Saturday and back up to Defcon 1.   

I just hope the majority can just keep their heads and not get carried away with brilliant wins or bad defeats.

Best example I can give is how often the loss and absence of CC was mentioned in the bad run and I've barely heard a word about him since we started winning again.

The big positive for me is Brady has made all the right calls to get us out of the slump and deserves credit for that even if the fixtures and returning players helped him out a little bit.  Went back to basics,  square pegs in square holes and made sure we were in every match by half time.  Picked all the players he trusts the most and put in the leaders.

We've got something good going here and some are going to have to grow a paiir and stick with it in the tough times when they inevitably happen again.

Please can I point out that the Trust board comprises of a group of individuals who differ in their views on a number of issues but who  have  common ground in their love of the football club and their desire to protect it going forward. The board agreed to write to WNDC to ask for a summation of the current position, which none of us felt was an unreasonable request. We (the board) did not write the letter but we all had sight of it before it was sent and views and possible amendments were asked for but none were received. Personally I  would not have written it in quite the same way but I  have no problem with the content of the letter.
 However, as a board, I do not feel we truly represent the diversity of the supporter base or even the trust membership itself. We are ninety percent male and most of us are over 60 years old.  I feel we need new blood and we need to be more reprensative of gender and cultural diversity. I am sure all my fellow board members agree. We have  an AGM coming up in February and I would love to see enough interest from prospective new members of the board to ensure that elections are required and we see some democracy in action. Despite the impression that is sometimes given on this forum we are not demons and (in my opinion and experience) alternate views and differing ways of leading the Trust forward would surely be made welcome.

Sadly for me the letter felt just like more of the same.  I was hoping to see a different approach from all that has gone before.

Sadly the valuable underlying points being made get lost in the rest of the sly digs, repetition of historical points and the constant comparison to other clubs.

I can't see how anyone reading that letter would not be thinking everyone would be better served if people got round a table and put these points face to face.  I don't really understand why all the time spent between the AGM and now hasn't been spent building some bridges with club, council and membership/supporters.

Couldn't agree more with you regarding the diversity.    This is surely best achieved by the Trust Board actively running or demonstrating support for diversity projects.  Surely the clubs community arm could be engaged with in this area? 

[It often seems that after a really good performance a bad result often follows. So I did a bit of research and my hunch proved to be correct, at least as far as the Cobblers are concerned.Our highest ever score was 11-1, we lost the next game.We've scored 10 goals 3 times, we never won any of the next 3 matches.]

Quote '. It often seems that after a really good performance a bad result often follows. So I did a bit of research and my hunch proved to be correct, at least as far as the Cobblers are concerned.

Our highest ever score was 11-1, we lost the next game.
We've scored 10 goals 3 times, we never won any of the next 3 matches.


Its the subtlety of Marvo's message which is confusing , he starts as above then descends in the penultimate sentence of 6-0 victories. The G
se

I know you are not Marvo's biggest fan but give it a rest just for once.

He literally says the follwoing in the first sentence...

With many people describing the game last night as a case of "After the Lords Mayors show" for Blackpool, the result got me thinking. It often seems that after a really good performance a bad result often follows. So I did a bit of research and my hunch proved to be correct, at least as far as the Cobblers are concerned.

the words "for Blackpool" being quite important.

Your example had no relevance with anything Marvo actually presented. 

I thought the original stats he presented were actually interesting and very suprising.

P.S. you've completely misread and responded incorrectly to a post on the redev thread you might also want to look at again.   

Do you know what an investment bank is? Clue, there’s quite a famous one near you beginning with M, they financed Wembley.

How much do you reckon an investment bank would be willing to lend the club in it's current position.  What assets would they secure that investment against?  Lastly what sort of terms generally do you think they would be offering, ballpark?

OK everyone knows that not all, but most, would bring the extra 1,000 fans. So we take off £24,000 for each team that doesn't bring those numbers, it still brings in a lot more than £180K . Also if we have extra capacity not being used by away fans we can do some deals to try to attract more home fans

Did everyone know that.  I know one person that clearly didn't and failed to include it in their calculations   

ANyway why not make it easier and use the figure KT himself shared a few months ago.  Can't remember the term for it but there is an actual figure that tells you what each individual additional seat would earn the club NET.  Think from memory is was something like £16 but I really can't remember for sure.

Having said that all a bit pointless guessing at figures and as Melly rightly pointed out all you proved is that at your best GUESS you would halve the average loss the club make annually and not for several years.  Hardly a difference maker in the overall scheme of things when another £1m on the playing budget would only put us mid table at best.

In a nutshell that's why it isn't as easy a solution as some make out and again as Melly points out, and gets loads of stick for, you have to find someone that is willing to put up that kind of money in the first place.

OK, Tottenham, Atlanta Falcons, LA RAMs..
Because the leaseholders are not interested in medium term investment, so it would be a waste of time.

Nice.  Come on then mate what was your personal role and what did you deliver as part of those developments then?  What is your area of expertise?  Not trying to out your identity here but you've got to give us more than that.

I mean this without malice but if stadium developments really are your area you have literally never posted anything on here over all these years to demonstrate that level of expertise.

Bit of a cop out on the club by the way to not even try.  Surely would have been worth an attempt even if it came to nothing.  What about the Trust etc.  They'd be crying out for your level of insight.

Also at this level you must deal with high net worth individuals in the states as potential investors?  

Overall I tend to agree with most of what Drilling and Dav have posted.

I personally have always believed that with the right, substantial financial backing this club could achieve Championship level football.  I genuinely believe that if the product on the pitch is good enough, the facilities are big enough and of good standard and the opposition well supported this club could double it's average attendance.  I base this on my own experience of knowing many people that go to big games when the team is doing well and the atmosphere is good but don't bother when it's not.

Our location is good and we have a large relatively exclusive catchment area.  We also have a ground with plenty of room for expansion.

The problem is obvious and that's finance.  If it was simple do people really not think anyone in our entire history would have done it already? People can talk about investment banks, fan led bonds etc. but the reality is none of that would touch the sides unless the people running the club were seriously minted.  As someone else pointed out it also gets harder each year when your competition isn't standing still and other clubs suddenly become seriously minted.

I don't want a fan led, community owned club unless the overall structure of football becomes fairer, which it won't.  Under current rules it would just make permanent  the glass ceiling we currently have.  Sure certain things would be "better" but imagine trying to run at break even every year and the challenges that would bring!

Where I agree with Drilling completely is I just want the land deal to get done and the owners exit plan, if they have one, to happen.  Where I have a little bit more trepedation than a lot of people is I'm not convinced there is some massively wealthy benefactor waiting in the wings.  History shows we are more likely to end up with someone who can only match what the current owners did or even worse someone that cnb't even do that after the initial excitement dies down.

In my opinion I also think people need to move away from comparisons with what other clubs have achieved.  Pretty much without fail every example people give of other clubs success or ground expansion has it's own story of complexity, difficulty, overspend and has always been backed by enabling development, significant borrowing or massive owner investment.  It's ok to aspire to want more but you have to be honest and acknowledge how difficult that is to achieve.

I've said before, to be honest if there is a rich benefactor out there surely this is an ideal time to buy and develop the club.  Pretty stable financially, loads of land you can develop, league one club with good manager, coaching, decent improving training facilities and brilliant community work.  

Maths is obviously not one of your strong points is it Nigel ? 1000 seats @ £24 per game brings in £24,000 per game. We have 23 League games so £24,000 x 23 = £552,000.
  Like you say you can make more money through programmes, food and drink sales but you have to pay for extra stewards, what ever way you look at it you are making around £500,000 per season , which gives you a 2 year return

How much would those extra 1000 seats have brought in to the club last Saturday.  If you work that out you'll see the flaw in your own maths.

Like Dav said I think these discussions are worthwhile till people start fag packeting the figures cause nobody at our level of support would have a clue what they really are and what would be required to achieve them.

Why would I do that? Shouldn’t that be the leaseholders?
I have done more stadium deals all over the world than you’ve had hot dinners FACT.

I'd love to hear more.  Name 3 stadium projects you were involved in and give us an idea of what your role was in their delivery.  What do you personally bring to the table?

Also if you carry the expertise you claim to have...FACT....I have a couple of other questions.

Why do you never demonstrate that expert knowledge in discussions on here?  Why have you never used these contacts and info to help out the Football Club, New Hotel End, Supporters Trust etc?

Think you need to have another listen. he clearly pops in £2m

can you actually read published accounts and what they mean?

Missed this one.

You might need to take your own advice.  Already listened again before I questioned it the first time as it didn't seem right.  Give me the timestamp where he said that and if it's in the context that you are presenting I'm happy to correct myself.  I'm sure you'll do likewise if you can't find anything.

As for the accounts.  Yep I can.  By no means an expert but spent enough years in business banking to understand and pull the info I need.  As I said in my other message, we would have a much more productive debate if you actually pointed out how I am wrong rather than just claiming I am.

quite a bit of that is certainly wrong and you are of course then making assumptions of what was going to happen.

Again I would be more understanding of your position if you did the same analysis of the owners and then applied the same 'moral compass' to them

Ok time to stop deflecting and have the balls to be honest for a change.

Which bits of what I said is wrong and why?  Defend your position with evidence for a change.  We both know the meetings took place.

If you don't think the board did anything wrong you should have no problem telling us.

In fact publish the minutes and Heads Of Terms if you are so confident in your position!

This isn't about the conduct of the owners it's about the conduct of the Trust Board.

Crikey, bit defensive? I don’t have a problem with it. All I’m pointing out is that it appears there was multiple interest and/or negotiations that took place about buying the club during the period in question. As I result it would be a bit nonsensical to complete the stand until such time as these had been concluded. Just so we are absolutely clear, as a member of the Board you are stating that the meeting between The Board and Don Woodward at the Obelisk Centre never took place?

For clarity the secret meetings that are being talked about happened in late August and early September of 2022 though I'm sure there were others.  Random/Duston Cobbler was on the board at that time as a co-opt and will have been fully aware and likely at the meetings.  Which is why he's dancing around the subject.  

As I pointed out on here back in October of last year and February of this year.  At this time The Trust were agreeing a secret £3m deal with Cilldara that would have seen them get ownership of the ACV land with Cilldara getting the rest of the dev land.  They also agreed a first refusal deal with Cilldara allowing them to purchase the ACV land should it ever be sold.  Let that sink in for a minute.

They literally were trying to remove the development land deal from the club by partnering with the competition while also committing any future sale of the football club ACV land, should it ever happen, to a known land developer with no interest in the football club!  All without ever consulting their members or the wider fanbase.

Ask to see the Heads of Terms agreed with Cilldara and the minutes of the meetings.  Shouldn't be a problem now the confidentiality clause has lapsed.    

The obvious outcome of the above would have been severe damage financially to the owners but even more so to the football club.  Damage they would have set in motion with no way of controlling it.

They were also in secret discussions at the same time with potential new owners introduced through Don.  Nothing wrong with planning for a rainy day UNLESS YOU ARE THE ONES TRYING TO MAKE IT RAIN.  Again ask to see the minutes.  Can't seem to find them on their website for some reason.  If they are worried about commerical confidentiality redact the commerically sensitive bits.

Essentially the plan was get the ACV land, cripple and remove the owners and ride in and save the day on the cheap.

Anyone that denies this is lying.  They met and discussed it.  They knew what they were doing, the damage it would cause the club and still did it anyway without consulting the people they represent.

The problem I have always had is an organisation that we are told only exists to protect the club was actively and secretly trying to damage it and remove the owners.  The board of that organisation is still, to this day, majority run by the same individuals that did this.  After all this fell through they genuinely expected to be able to walk straight back in to a meeting with the owners they tried to remove.

P.S. no threats to my pension pot received and never will be because it's true and they know it.

[by the time the owners complete the land deal]

I am worried that as we get closer to the land deal, the money put in seems to get bigger and bigger. KT on BBC Npton stating we put in one OR TWO million per year !!!

MCHammer saying the owners have put in £10m etc etc

All just said in a flippant, off the cuff way.

Not flippant or off the cuff.  Unlike yourself I don't make things up. 

I didn't say the owners have put in £10m.  I said by the time the owners complete the land deal they will have put in over £10m.  I base that on the last public accounts showing what they are owed, the public voluntary arrangement to take ownership of CDNL, the publicly agreed amount with WNC for the land purchase and an allowance for what's likely been put in since the last set of published accounts.  That's without including any associated legal costs which will have also been a decent wedge.

Oh and supply the timestamp where KT said £2m or are you lying/misrepresenting again to exaggerate a point?  He said and repeated many times they were comfortable as owners supporting a £1m annual loss.

I thought Burton were really poor.  Most of which was down to the way they clearly setup for a draw.  They were literally time wasting ten minutes in.  Surely any manager worth their salt would have setup to hit us hard early on and get the crowd anxious knowing the terrible run we had been on.  We honestly couldn't have asked for a more suitable game to regain some confidence.

Having said that I thought a lot of smart decisions were made by Brady.  A lot of us said we needed to go back to basics and it's what he did.  Tight first half, don't concede, be physical and keep a good shape.  The formation was spot on and he picked players he knows he can trust, all round pegs in round holes some adding the required leadership presence that has been missing recently.

We were excellent second half and very comfortable I thought.  Once we went ahead the result was never in doubt.

Looking at the table we have nothing to fear from any of the teams in the bottom half of the table when we are at our best.  Fingers crossed Brady deserves some luck finally with injuries.  I'd love to see what a fit squad could achieve.     

The Judicial Review highlighted that from 2019 there were individuals in negotiations to buy the club and partnered different investors at various times to achieve this (one of which was Cilldara). And Cilldara were of course were in partnership with the Trust. However, confusingly its rumoured the Trust also had meetings with another separate party at the Obelisk Centre interested in buying the club, should the owners walk away due to the delays. If correct, this may explain the subsequent conflict with Cilldara and their "outing" the Trust "Advisor" on radio Noddy? Who knows, nobody seems keen to clarify exactly what went on, so we'll all have to keep guessing until there's some open transparency. Anyway, the owners are hardly likely to blow a few million on the stand whilst someone is negotiating to buy the club are they, that would be ludicrous. So that along with the ACV/Land Auction/JR would explain the delays from 2019 to current. Maybe the Board speaking with multiple parties with an interest in buying the club perhaps contributed to the status quo. Consequently, you could reasonably argue everyone involved has to share a level of responsibility for the delays? Whatever your view, to allocate 100% of the responsibility for the delays regarding the completion of the East Stand to the owners is ridiculous.

The council were also pretty dysfuctional between mid 2019 and mid 2021 while NBC was being replaced by WNC.  Certainly any big decisions were being palmed off till the new council was in place.

Are we also supposed to pretend there were no complexities regarding what Buckinghams were owed/owned regarding the stand!

Quite why some people keep bringing up what happened 7/8 years ago while pretending nothing changed or obstructed progress in between then and now is beyond me.

The ultimate stupidity of course is there are people complaining about the original deal not being fulfilled when the owners will have put in well over £10m of their own funds by the time they even complete the land purchase let alone the stand.