[had]

We had freedom of movement, but then some people voted against it as they didn't want others to have the freedom to come here.

I genuinely don't think a large proportion of leavers understood it worked both ways.   

FFS not another delay, old DB can’t have long left.

Try not to worry but Random hasn't answered yet.  I'm sure the details of the FOI are on the way.

FFS not another delay, old DB can’t have long left.

"Perhaps" according to Random.  We should know more when he supplies the info to my questions.

NASA they faked the moon landings FFS FACT.

I mean you literally quoted a NASA article to support your argument earlier in this thread!

As for the latest link you supplied.  An article posted in 2011 about a known climate change denier, who has no Scientific background whatsoever and has been proven wrong on countless occassions.  That's the best you got?  Your'e not even trying anymore are you.   

Perhaps Homes England are not too happy to sign? I KNOW from a FOI that it was a sticking point and cause for delays etc

Can you expand on this please.  What was the sticking point and cause for delay?

In fact feel free to share the response to the FOI if that's easier.

so ever fan who wants to know should contact Tom directly??

even though mods on this board are attending yet fro some reason won't publish the details

You are literally the only person that deperately seems to be seeking this information which you have been given anyway.  Literally the time it takes you to post on here you could just drop Tom an email.  It's that simple yet you seem reluctant to ever contact Tom.  It was the same the time you wanted updates on the scoreboard/advertising board.  For some bizarre reason you want to complain on here rather than the easiest option of getting the info from the horses mouth.

so where have I said that I am missing out or that the Trust is upset, actually the totally opposite, we are actually quite pleased this is happening, hopefully they can achieve something that no other supporter has achieved with these owners - investment into something they want help with

But it's not unreasonable given the effort that went into announcing it (well more than the club had wrote to the Trust telling them they won't deal with them) to ask for details of who is going and when that meeting will take place

Again the narrative of representation has come from KT, so again I am simply asking who will ask the important questions - who is representing those people with those questions.

You've been hiding it really well if that's the case. 

I mean if you are that interested you could literally contact Tom directly.  It really would be that easy.

The minutes of our board meeting ARE published !!!!

None published on your website since October last year.  Also missing the minutes from the various meetings held regarding the Cilldara partnership and the meeting with a potential new owner.  

Why don't people wait and see before they write the FAB off?  Also doesn't it deserve a little bit of time to find it's way and setup it's processes?

The fact some are already critical or champing at the bit to find fault speaks more about them than the FAB.  I mean how anyone from a failing supporters trust board and those that prop up that board thinks they have a right to criticise things like actually consulting the fans and minuting meetings is beyond me.  Get your own house in order first.

Can't wait for this one.  Just hope we put on a performance.

Pish clearly a decent attacking side BUT some of their results show they can be got at.

Hi Bhyll

With respect, could the same not be said of you?  

You simply wanted to ignore ALL the questions we have about the past actions of the owners (including them ranting and shouting at you when you ask a couple of questions) in the HOPE that everything is going to be alright?

JM showed you the proof of the £6.68m but you simply refused to even look at it

We tried to meet with the club to move forward, as I said myself and JM massively reduced our complaints and posts on SM,  but in the end we still got treated like s***, even though in the main we were doing what you and the club wanted

You have now resigned 3 times from the Trust, why? The Trust is certainly poorer without you in

I do not doubt your support of the club and even the Trust (you have done and continued to do great work in the name of the Trust - of which I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for - thank you)

The problem is that most fans have almost zero interest in the medium or long term future of our club, anything negative, no matter how true or factual it is, is ignored or some excuse is given.

The Trust was set up to watch over our football club, it is not a supporter club, no matter what some supporters think it should be.

The Trust has been in contact with quite a few other Trusts recently and we are finding that it is the same elsewhere, they are being ostracised by other supporters and their clubs

The FAB concept is also being implemented at other clubs in an effort to smooth the way re the Tracy Crouch report but also for the clubs to control the narrative and sideline the Trusts

The Trust has to look at the dealings of the club owners and there are many things that don't make sense, don't add up, then you analyse EXACTLY what KT says and what EXACTLY happens and you only find more reasons to be concerned for the medium term future of NTFC

Again if I am wrong so far, please please, anyone show me the evidence (not words) that proves or at least very firmly backs up your beliefs, that NTFC will benefit from this land deal?

Also anyone explain to me how the owners paying themselves £7m is good for the short, medium or long term future of our club?

Bhyll added to the list.  Classy.  Not everyone that has a contrary point of view are wrong.

The Trust Board will not get a PR guru to help them because they genuinely believe that they are in the right and they hold the moral high ground. The majority of them deliberately do not read the Hotel End because at best they feel it is biased against them (with some justification imo) and at worse that it is totally irrelevant. There is a core belief that the majority of Trust members, albeit silent ones, support what they are doing and feel it is in the best long term interests of the football club. In my opinion this view is reached because they mostly talk with people who agree with them and they do not attempt to canvass the wider membership's views. Hopefully this will change in the coming months.

Just a quick message to say even though I might not agree on everything you say regarding the Trust, I feel you've been a class act in the way you present yourself and the actions you have taken.  Well done for your part in taking the Ukrainian kids to the match recently.

I think your message sums up what I've always been told and felt in that the Trust Board reside in an echo chamber.  My personal feeling regarding why most Board Members don't post on here is the same as why they don't attend the Open Forums when they get the chance.  Because they know there are plenty of intelligent people on here that will challenge their view and have evidence to support those contrary opinions.

But the only real focus was to get rid of JM, stop posting (which myself and JM did for quite while - at the request of NMT and the club - only for the club to continue to use every trick and every person possible to discreet the Trust - But again KT/DB have 10 million reasons to act the way they do, the Trust have 1)

so again I question why would someone go to so much time and trouble ?  what is in it for them?  

Tom's already answered all this rubbish multiple times and he has the receipts to prove it.

After all this time you think we should ALL ignore that email trail and believe what you are saying instead?

The emails from Helen, Rob and Tom were clearly aimed at two things.  1. To request the Cilldara/Trust legal advisor to conduct himself in an appropriate manner and 2. act within the boundaries of the roles he holds as advisor and secretary.  They weren't trying to get rid of him and frankly Andy should have dealt with it all correctly from the off.  It was only when the FSA got involved that Andy actually did his job correctly.

Compare and contrast the tone and content of those 3 individuals in that trail to YOUR response and continual conduct surrounding this specific subject on here.  It's night and day.  Till you all realise this....which you clearly don't...you'll continue to be completely ineffective.

Nail on heads here - in my brief direct contact with board members and those close I discussed how a less confrontational approach might be brokered (irrespective of all the criticism levelled at the club - IMO some of which credible, some not) - this approach was dismissed out of hand and clearly some individual were more motivated by the fight rather than the outcome, but looking at where we are now, what actually has been achieved? - again just my opinion, absolutely nothing positive and quite a lot negative. 

Two brilliant points there Peter.  One, the fight became more important than the outcome.  To the extent that ANYONE who disagrees is simply wrong.  I'm not even sure they are clear on an acceptable outcome.

Second, what actually has been achieved using this approach?  Other than their own destruction I can't see a single benefit.  I've said this many times before but what have the Trust actually done for an ordinary supporter over the last seven years?  What relevance do they have to you or anyone else as a supporter?

Re Tom, I haven't got the strength to argue with you anymore, if you think it is ok for someone to actively try to discredit fellow fans and an established Trust from a position of being 4000 miles aways, then fine. If you can't see the difference and why I and other Board members and Trust members would have a problem with that then fine. Again he provided no evidence of the results of the petition, his website broke rules in terms of transparency and yet he was welcomed on to the Trust board.

what evidence do you want ?  I don't have the evience in my pocket or on my computer, I have seen it, other board members, including Bhyll have seen it.

I couldn't care if you live 2 miles from the ground or a 1000.  If you think the way you and the Trust Board have conducted themselves over the last couple of years is acceptable then you deserve every bit of criticism you receive.  I respect what certain members of the Trust Board past and present have contributed over the years but this does not make you immune from criticism when your actions are undemocratic and begin to endanger the very club it is your remit to protect.

This has become personal to many on the board to the point they have trashed every relationship they had.  You ignore advice from the FSA, fall out the council and have contrbuted to the complete break down of any relationship with the club.

On a personal level you have contributed greatly to the downfall of the Trust.  Your conduct is atrocious, you take no one on the journey with you.  You don't answer even the simplest of questions and I know for a fact some existing board members and ex board members find your behaviour a complete embaressment on a personal and professional level.  It's harsh but that's the truth.  You have contributed nothing of beneift to the supporters or the club in the last 7 years and barely even contribute the entrance fee.  You lie, mislead and omit key information on nearly every post you make on this forum.  You've not a single jot of contrition for the disgraceful partnership with Cilldara and you expect to walk back into discussions with the club and council as if nothing ever happened.

As for the evidence again simple question....why can't it just be put into the public domain fior EVERYONE to see it?  

perhaps its because I live in Northampton and don't want a load of warehouses dumped into our leisure area and that we need better leisure and dining facilities etc

so I am trying to protect Northampton and NTFC and make it a better place

but then you have someone from the other side of the world actively setting up websites and encouraging people to remove those who are trying to protect their club and who are asking questions.

so would it be ok for me to actively campaign against say a local group or activity that Tom supports, trying to encourage people to close it down, to affect how it runs and to make false allegations and assumptions about the people involved?

would that be ok, even though it doesn't really affect me as I live 4000 miles away?

Never able to answer a straight question because both you and I know the answer will demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of you calling out others and their lack of attendance as some kind of judgement on their right to have an opinion about the you and the Trust.

As for the rest Tom has dealt with it all in his post.

Oh and by the way answer by question regarding the Chinese evidence you were so keen to bring up.

For once stop dodging and give some evidenced, honest replies so we really can have a debate based on the FACTS.

as I said, they could have structured any deal they wanted. ie: you can only buy the land if you either complete the East stand first or pay x amount to contribute towards the East stand

like they do with every other land deal when they want facilities for schools, roads, parks etc etc

Your suggestion feels like a JR really would have had a problem with!

So you believe the right thing to do was for the council to tell all bidders irrespective of ownership of the football club to either put up an extra £4-£5m on top of their existing bid up front for stand completion.  For land independently valued at £870k.  So what an upfront payment of circa £7m or £8m?

And if I go along with this thought process it simply begs the question that if you and the Trust board felt this is what should have happened, why the hell wasn't stand completion ever part of the partnership you agreed with Cilldara?  

The stand before land should have stayed and been a requirement of any land bid. simple

How would that have worked then?  One party has no requirement to build a stand and the other does.  One party can pay for the land on completion of the deal and the other can't pay for the land until they complete the stand obligation.

The moment a second party, Cilldara, got involved stand before land was impossible.

Why should the Trust and or Cilldara have been allowed to get the land before stand by the way and why didn't the Trust insist on that requirement if it's such an issue to you?

more than Tom 

Probably true so how many?  Considering you live in Duston and he lives half way round the world you do have a slight advantage.

Just answer a question honestly for a change.  I suspect for someone living in Duston it's probably not that impressive.  Do you know what though it makes zero difference to my opinion of you other than the hypocrisy of calling someone else out on their attendance.

 

what about the High Court judge who also saw evidence who was happy for it to go forward to a JR but obviously didn't have to face the music of the final decision.

three words to you..... The Post Office

Tell you what.  As you are so sure why don't you explain to us all on which legal points the judge got it wrong.  I'm sure you've read the JR so go on all the specific legal claims that Cilldara made which was she wrong about and why?  Remember it's a decision based on the evidence that was provided.

If she was so wrong why didn't Cilldara appeal.

In fact I'm feeling so generous go and get the Trust/Cilldara legal advisor JM to reply for you.