Trust Bashing Here Please

[guest168]

As the redev thread now seems to be a Trust bashing thread I thought it better to have it's own

Then maybe other fans can read up about what is actually happening with any redev rather than a "lets have a go at the Trust" so to distract from far far more important things, like what is happening with the redev and what does it mean for the long term future of the club.

Here you go I will start you off, here is my statement at the Council meeting. Please go through it and pick out all the bits that are lies or slander

Many Thanks

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
My name is Derek Krajewski and I was awarded Supporter of Year in 2012
(Enough about me !)
History appears to be repeating itself.

In 2015 the Cardoza’s, as owners of NTFC, wanted to claw back their £7m pound debt by development of the East stand

Today, the owners want to claw back their 7m debt by development of the East stand

In 2015 We lost our East stand along with the training and running track facility behind it.

Today, upto 4 acres of Asset Community Value land could be lost and sold off for warehousing.

In 2015, Throughout 6 years of stagnation, development was the only focus, all done in the so-called best interests of the club

Today, after 6 years our owners have stated they don’t do…. build it and the they will come, and that it is not financially viable to develop NTFC or the stadium.
Yet apparently this land deal and development is the answer to our prayers and in the best interests of the club

In 2015, NBC rushed into a deal that resulted in millions of pounds being mishandled through the football club

Today,  long delays then zoom, council and public meetings at very short notice. The land deal changed from a co-op profit share to a quick sale. We also have the same club employees from 2015 imploring fans and council to just…get the deal done.

There appears no desire by our council, our owners, even some of our fans, to use this opportunity to build something special, something to actually be proud of. And that lack of ambition and belief in Northampton as a whole, is very very disappointing.

Yes we need the executive boxes but we need far far more than 300 extra seats if NTFC is to prosper. Oxford United recently announced a new 18 000 seater stadium, even though they don’t sell out their current 12 000 seats.

The Trust presentation to the council in 2021 was received as negative, unfortunately it’s an uncomfortable truth. NTFC has underperformed for about 40 seasons out of the last 55 years. Lack of infrastructure has been a major factor, we have by far, the smallest stadium capacity per population of any established league club.

so. Why is there a sense of desperation rather than excitement to this development?

In 6 years around £40m has gone through the hands of the owners in relation to the football club with almost nothing to show for it.

can they or anyone else tell me, why I should trust them with our ACV land,?

Mr Nunn, you are the leader of our council, you are supposed to lead us.  you have 20 acres of land in a prime area. Are you Happy to miss this opportunity for real investment and growth in our town and football club by selling off land cheaply and building more warehouses?

I implore you and the council to remove all of the original ACV land from any deal.

That ACV land should be not be owned by any football club owners, it is a vital piece that could be used to secure NTFC’s future for generations to come. For example Profits directed to an Infrastructure Foundation that maintains and develops the Sixfields stadium.

Afterall, it is Northampton land, it should be trusted to the people of Northampton, with due respect, not speculators whom reside in Florida and Dubai.

We really can do better.
Please Don’t let history repeat itself

[guest168]

I am a member of the Trust board but this statement was given as myself, although for full disclosure, the council did ask if i was part of the Trust.

The Trust is there to safeguard professional football in Northampton, which it has done, not once but twice.

In my view, my statement is about trying to secure that status and actually insist that we all do more.

The devil now is in the detail and the Trust will be watching very very closely to what KT says and does

Afterall he is a genius with his words, I await the same level of skill with his actions and delivery.

Sorry if that offends some of those who travelled to Carlisle

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Absolutely no problem with any of your statement whatsoever Derek. However you could have added the caveat, “the following are my own personal views. I have no idea if these are the views of the majority of the people who support the club or the membership of the Trust”.
However may I make a suggestion. Why don’t the board put the following or something similar to the vote.

From this point forward as a member of the Trust I give permission for the board of the Trust to make all decisions on my behalf without further consultation. I understand that following approval of this option whilst I may raise concerns with the Board my only option to truly affect decision making is to joint the Board of the Trust.
From this point forward as a member of the Trust I do not give permission for the board of the Trust to make all decisions on my behalf without further consultation. I wish to see decision making of the Board endorsed by democratic process instigated by volume of objection.
Feel free to mess about with the wording, but if the principle remains the same I’m sure the majority of people would be onboard.
One vote and if the majority of members endorse it we can all move forward. As an organisation committed to being democratic I am sure the Board would be most keen to give this suggestion serious consideration. Perhaps even put it to the vote during a Board meeting and publish the results. Then everyone knows where  they stand.
Finally the title you have chosen to use for this thread is most unfortunate and is perhaps may be interpreted an attempt ridicule those members who may have a different view to yourself. This may in part contribute to the suppression of opinion of the membership. My view is that it demonstrates everything that is wrong with this debate and has to stop from both sides. As a member of the Board I am sure you would like to encourage opinion from members and supporters on social media. It gives an opportunity for debate and a conduit for the Board of the Trust to communicate its policies and position.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Following my comments, to underline my commitment to the ideal of a strong and democratic Trust and as a gesture of goodwill I have made a £50 payment through the Trust website.

[guest3481]

The club should have a strong Trust that can challenge the club whilst maintaining a professional relationship. They don't. It has felt at a few times recently that they have been given an opportunity to get back in and shot themselves in the foot. Its a two way relationship and I dont believe the owners have acted in good faith either but its their club so they get to set the rules and decide who plays. Now you dont have to agree to all of them but you need to do enough to be invited to the party. An example is the debacle over the answers to the questions. The Trust wanted written, the club wanted zoom. For me the solution, argue to the point 2-3 times and then agree to a recorded zoom call, followed by written minutes. Something the satisfies both sides. Don't issue a press release saying they wont play by your rules so you're telling teacher.

Do the Trust represent their members? The Trust seem to think yes, it feels on here and on social media the answer is no. Here's a novel idea, ask them. Dont hide behind GPDR or the cost of stamps. If there is a real desire to ask the members then you'll be able to do it.

What % of the fan base do the Trust represent? The annual members is a good sign but the life members, would be good to be open an honest about engagement. To the outside world the Trust represent all fans, personally they don't, and that's not a criticism of the Trust now. Personally a Trust in modern football has no more influence than arranging travel and fundraisers for academies, women's teams etc. Thats all and any Trust, not just NTFC Trust.

My final, some what rhetorical point, do the Trust think they are on the right path and treading it in the right way or are there serious things they need to address internally?

[guest3338]

The club should have a strong Trust that can challenge the club whilst maintaining a professional relationship. They don't. It has felt at a few times recently that they have been given an opportunity to get back in and shot themselves in the foot. Its a two way relationship and I dont believe the owners have acted in good faith either but its their club so they get to set the rules and decide who plays. Now you dont have to agree to all of them but you need to do enough to be invited to the party. An example is the debacle over the answers to the questions. The Trust wanted written, the club wanted zoom. For me the solution, argue to the point 2-3 times and then agree to a recorded zoom call, followed by written minutes. Something the satisfies both sides. Don't issue a press release saying they wont play by your rules so you're telling teacher.

Do the Trust represent their members? The Trust seem to think yes, it feels on here and on social media the answer is no. Here's a novel idea, ask them. Dont hide behind GPDR or the cost of stamps. If there is a real desire to ask the members then you'll be able to do it.

What % of the fan base do the Trust represent? The annual members is a good sign but the life members, would be good to be open an honest about engagement. To the outside world the Trust represent all fans, personally they don't, and that's not a criticism of the Trust now. Personally a Trust in modern football has no more influence than arranging travel and fundraisers for academies, women's teams etc. Thats all and any Trust, not just NTFC Trust.

My final, some what rhetorical point, do the Trust think they are on the right path and treading it in the right way or are there serious things they need to address internally?

Are you a member of the Trust London? If not, you need to be.

[Peter Frost]

I resisted replying to this thread because I think the title is unfortunate and likely to polarise views further - however it’s started so I’ll continue.

Reading and indeed contributing to the other thread the reality is the majority of contributors are not bashing the trust (in my review of the last few days I would probably put just one poster in this category)

Derrick - seriously you have to leave egos outside the door and listen to the comments from these posters who -

1) Support a strong and representative Trust and acknowledge some of the great work they have done in the past and will continue to do in the future.
2) In general are not antitrust, club plants or too stupid to understand the facts.
3) Cannot simply be dismissed as a noisy minority.
4) Feel the Trust has not, in a number of actions represented their views.
5) Made decisions and statements they disagree with.
6) Believe  Trust Board members when operating on social media or other public forums have not always made it clear they are representing their own personal views or representing the Trust (and thereby it’s members).

The reason I mention egos is it doesn’t matter if you believe any of the above or indeed you think people are wrong because for a democratic organisation to work and flourish it has to acknowledge other views.

There seems a growing consensus for the trust to canvas the membership and I think this is great idea which need not just focus on the above issues but also look at some growth for the future. I would also suggest the Trust Board reach out to a few of the “dissenting voices” in compiling any feedback questionnaire to avoid questions that might appear to be directing an outcome.

[BackOfTheNet]

As this is going into the territory of improving Trust engagement with the fans then I'll repost this from the other week:

there is a happy medium between the postal option and the unverified free for all that would result from just publishing a link [to a survey].

Put a GDPR consent form on your website, make it prominent in the landing page and then use social media to drive members to it. It doesn't have to be time limited or even do anything technical to match the details off - periodically someone could pick up the results and verify them against your list of members.

Incidentally, if you already hold email addresses you probably don't need specific consent to contact your members using them. At the company I work for we recently took specialist legal advice about some pre-GDPR customer data we held. It turns out we could use more than we thought we could because it's about what the subject of the data can reasonably expect you to use the data they provided you with for. In the case of the Trust, if a member provided you with their email address in pretty much any context it wouldn't be unreasonable for the Trust to use that address to solicit their opinion on something.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

As this is going into the territory of improving Trust engagement with the fans then I'll repost this from the other week:

All we’ll and good if GDPR is a frustration to be complied with. However, in this case I believe it’s more likely to be a convenience to hide behind.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

In your disclosure to the council, did you also stated that you had been turned down by the club for a job. And that the club at one time threatened you with legal action.

Do you think you’ll get the supporter of the year award again.. ?

[guest3338]

In your disclosure to the council, you also stated that you had been turned down by the club for a job. And that the club at one time threatened you with legal action.

Do you think you’ll get the supporter of the year award again.. ?

Would you want it again under those circumstances?