Is this you making a decision on behalf of the whole of the fanbase?
How many of the many thousand fans did go to the open day?
Yes, the CGI looks alright, thats usually what CGI's do.
The Trust board feel that the overall plan is not acceptable.
You missed the last part of the mission statement..... "We commit to supporting the aims and objectives of NTFC where, in the opinion of the board, these are not in direct conflict with the needs and best interests of supporters."
The Board don't believe that what is being proposed meets that final criteria. It really is that simple.
How can saddling the club with another £3m of debt on top of the 6-7m already accrued and the football club taking on all the development risk be in the best interests of supporters?
Open invite to you Deepcut, join in the next board meeting, better still put yourself forward to be a board member...... then maybe you can effect the change that you so obviously want to see.
I'm commenting on behalf of me, no one else.
I asked the question "Why isn't the CGI acceptable?" I wasn't at the Open Day, can The Trust Board explain/reveal why, in their opinion, it wasn't acceptable?
The Trust Mission Statement also headlines:
To be open, democratic and inclusive in considering the needs and ideas of supporters
To promote and strengthen the bonds between NTFC, its supporters and the wider community
To safeguard a professional Football League club in Northampton
At what level does the Board take over the decision making on behalf of the members when deciding "in the opinion of the Board"?
The statement released appears to be quite a significant 'decision', to withdraw their support, that I would assume/hope exceeds that threshold?
Regarding the additional £3m of debt. How else would the East Stand be funded if not initially from the owners pockets, which will subsequently be recoverable from the land development?
Before considering your invitation to attend the next meeting, I also asked a question earlier:
"Unfortunately, The Trust Board lose even more credibility every time they open their collective mouth(s).
Someone on the Board must realise this, or is this why certain individuals have left?"
I'm not
just asking about the recent departures.
Is it because they realised that they cannot change the agenda of a board that negatively criticises the current owners at every opportunity with naive, destabilising statements that look as though they have been composed by a student on work experience?
Which therefore alienates a significant/large amount of the membership/fans who haven't been privy to the 'knowledge' in order to form their own opinion?
I refer you to the first bullet point of the Mission Statement.
I also posted earlier the following:
Agreement deal on the land development is achieved between the club and the council.
East Stand is completed.
Land is redeveloped.
KT and DB are repaid their £10m+ 'investor' loan, from the club share of the land deal, when completed.
Club has nil debt.
Club receive increased income from the East Stand facilities, the increased seating and the ongoing club share of the land deal subsequent income.
It's not a quick fix, how long will it take to achieve that following the initial Land development agreement? (the start line)
I would guess that we are looking at anything up to 5 years? Or am I being optimistic?Is that not a satisfactory solution?
Am I being optimistic or pessimistic, in the opinion of The Trust Board?
GPC. I know that you have only recently taken up a position on the board and intended to keep your personal opinion separate from The Trust perspective but it appears that you have been corralled into being The Trust Board representative spokesperson where borders have merged and become cloudy.
I apologise for that but at the same time thank you. Hopefully you do realise that it is not personal to either yourself or the individual members of The Trust Board, but as a collective The Trust is losing credibility almost daily with an apparent mismanagement of the Boards raison d'etre.