New Trust statement on club finances

[guest3338]

They outlined the process in the questions I put to them elsewhere on the forum CJ. There is no vehicle for voting people off the board as such as far as I can tell. To become a member of the board you need to be proposed and seconded I think and that’s it? It’s all very above board and respectable, but you can’t get away from the fact that during my joining the Trust I had about 4 communications including delivery of my membership card. I the years that have followed I have not received a direct communication despite providing my contact details etc. As a result I have never had the opportunity to endorse any candidates etc. At the moment the Trust share that distinction in my life with North Korea. Bit unkind but it does annoy me, especially when you read the new mission statement whilst considering this fact.

Probably not constitutionally the best but perhaps the question that should be asked is how many who put themselves forward for nomination or secondment fail to get a seat at the table?
Not many would be ny guess.
It also always seems to me that the Trust don't matter (hence my particular apathy), until the Trust matter. People then develop a habit of interrogating the processes involved when it's already too late. Extremely hypocritical in my opinion. Most of these folk critical of the Trust didn't give a flying fcuk about them 3 months ago, they werent even on their own particular horizon (apart from Tel that is lol).

[everbrite]

I'm not sure they are accusing the owners of anything? They have outlined for all those transactions they feel are relevant to the situation moving forwards so people like you can draw their own conclusions. Why are they mercilessly criticised for doing so? They havent commented on their own statement beyond that so far as I can tell. They have also withdrawn their support for the 'deal'.
Im not sure of the election process for Trust board members (even though I'm a member, but I dont blame the Trust for that I blame my own apathy, I could easily find out if I needed to) but i know they are there to represent their members in the same way my MP represents me in parliament. For those that have an issue with this then they can exercise options including leaving the Trust if they are existing members, standing for election to the board to affect policy change from within or voting members of the board off t 8)e board.

Completely agree with you CJ

[Carton Lid]

Probably not constitutionally the best but perhaps the question that should be asked is how many who put themselves forward for nomination or secondment fail to get a seat at the table?
Not many would be my guess.

It is probably well over 10 years since anyone stood for election and didn't get a seat. I've said it time after time. if you don't like the way the Trust is run, stand for election and do something about it. It's like moaning about Boris but then not voting at an election

[Melbourne Cobbler]

It is probably well over 10 years since anyone stood for election and didn't get a seat. I've said it time after time. if you don't like the way the Trust is run, stand for election and do something about it. It's like moaning about Boris but then not voting at an election

What about the members who can’t get involved for whatever reason. Therefore the message that conveys is that unless you are able to take a seat on the board then don’t bother joining because it will be a pointless and futile exercise. All against the Trust mission of inclusivity with the membership etc etc. As I said it the Trust board believe that is acceptable it’s truly an organisation that has completely lost its way IMO.

[Manwork04]

What about the members who can’t get involved for whatever reason. Therefore the message that conveys is that unless you are able to take a seat on the board then don’t bother joining because it will be a pointless and futile exercise. All against the Trust mission of inclusivity with the membership etc etc. As I said it the Trust board believe that is acceptable it’s truly an organisation that has completely lost its way IMO.

So “for whatever reason” you can’t get involved” it’s the Trusts fault? WTF.
Your beginning to sound anti Trust Melly 😂😂😂

[guest3359]

It is probably well over 10 years since anyone stood for election and didn't get a seat. I've said it time after time. if you don't like the way the Trust is run, stand for election and do something about it. It's like moaning about Boris but then not voting at an election

The issue I have with this sort of statement which has been said a few times is I have no interest in either joining the Trust or being on the board, and I fully accept that means I have no say over what the Trust does.
For a long time they have had no impact to my support of the club, and although I cant think how to word it, I mean that in a positive way. The work they do for away travel, the financial support they give to the academy and community work, the sponsoring of players, the sponsoring of the ladies team and so much more.

My issue is over the recent statements, the aggressive tones they have towards the club, and at times the council, going to the press (if true) etc which all sour the relationship with not only the Trust but also the wider fan base against the club and owner and serve no positive outcome. A Trust 100% need to hold the owners to account, and there is so much they could be challenging the owners on, especially around timelines, club before development etc, which they are, but that's being lost in the rest of the rubbish.

The analogy about not voting in an election isn't true. We have a government, we have no choice in that so yes in that case I agree if you don't vote you shouldn't get a say. But we don't have to have a trust. I am happy for a Trust to operate how they should and how they have for so many years, but jeapordising things as they are now is when people like me get pi$$ed off and comment on matters. This is for the Trust and its members to address, not the wider fan base, and I hope they do it soon. Assuming the members aren't happy that is

[Manwork04]

The issue I have with this sort of statement which has been said a few times is I have no interest in either joining the Trust or being on the board, and I fully accept that means I have no say over what the Trust does.
For a long time they have had no impact to my support of the club, and although I cant think how to word it, I mean that in a positive way. The work they do for away travel, the financial support they give to the academy and community work, the sponsoring of players, the sponsoring of the ladies team and so much more.

My issue is over the recent statements, the aggressive tones they have towards the club, and at times the council, going to the press (if true) etc which all sour the relationship with not only the Trust but also the wider fan base against the club and owner and serve no positive outcome. A Trust 100% need to hold the owners to account, and there is so much they could be challenging the owners on, especially around timelines, club before development etc, which they are, but that's being lost in the rest of the rubbish.

The analogy about not voting in an election isn't true. We have a government, we have no choice in that so yes in that case I agree if you don't vote you shouldn't get a say. But we don't have to have a trust. I am happy for a Trust to operate how they should and how they have for so many years, but jeapordising things as they are now is when people like me get pi$$ed off and comment on matters. This is for the Trust and its members to address, not the wider fan base, and I hope they do it soon. Assuming the members aren't happy that is

You mention all the good things the Trust does, so why do you think they are so anti the current ownership?
Have a little think before you answer.

[guest3359]

You mention all the good things the Trust does, so why do you think they are so anti the current ownership?
Have a little think before you answer.

No idea. I've not seen any valid reason for it, no evidence or any formal petition to police, HMRC, council etc

[Manwork04]

No idea. I've not seen any valid reason for it, no evidence or any formal petition to police, HMRC, council etc

There must be something to get such a reaction?

[BackOfTheNet]

You mention all the good things the Trust does, so why do you think they are so anti the current ownership?
Have a little think before you answer.

That's a bit like saying "Well, yes, Jimmy Saville was a paedophile but he did do a lot for charity..."

No one is all good or all bad but you can't turn a blind eye to the bad things someone does just because they also do good things, and equally you can't assume that everything someone does is good just because they've been seen to do good in the past.

The Trust is widely a force for good, but their behaviour in certain areas in recent years leaves a lot to be desired.

[guest3359]

There must be something to get such a reaction?

I would like to agree, but we've seen nothing.
It appears that its just a group of people who dont like them and dont like the fact they are not on the inner circle. Like I have said before if the Trust have evidence of wrong doing they should have put it to the owners, and failing a positive reply gone to the authorities. Without anything concrete both sides are travelling further down the road of pettiness and drifting further apart.
For me the Trust either need to play their hand (if they have one) or drastically change the way they approach things

[guest49]

Reading between all of the cryptic lines, effectively it is being implied by some quarters that the owners haven't spent anything (net) or very little, yet have millions of debt against the club. However, if this was even true that nothing illegal has probably happened and no one is smart enough to demonstrate this.
The net result is ridiculous accusations, veiled digs, sh*tty letters and plenty of handbags.

Whatever the Trust's intentions have been recently it has probably backfired with those that are interested, or were very pro the current owners.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

So “for whatever reason” you can’t get involved” it’s the Trusts fault? WTF.
Your beginning to sound anti Trust Melly 😂😂😂

Not anti Trust Manny, more anti process really. It’s not the Trust fault you can’t get involved but they are supposed to serve the membership as a whole, it doesn’t say anything anywhere about subject to sitting on the board to have a say. There are members like myself who live abroad, or those that are elderly or perhaps have health issues, the list is rather obviously fairly comprehensive. Don’t they deserve to have their voice heard too? Is it reasonable to assume that due to circumstance some members may not be able to sit on the board to be heard and have a say, I think it is and before you say anything I know you agree.

[guest1269]

Do you know anything about 5USPORT or where their money came from in the first instance?
I don't.

I know absolutely nothing about 5USPORT and that’s my point - those making veiled (or not so veiled) accusations almost certainly don’t either - all I do know that has been now repeated many times it’s highly unlikely they walked away with nothing leaving £6.7 million on the table.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

I know absolutely nothing about 5USPORT and that’s my point - those making veiled (or not so veiled) accusations almost certainly don’t either - all I do know that has been now repeated many times it’s highly unlikely they walked away with nothing leaving £6.7 million on the table.

Wasn't the 5USPORT issue explained in the 'leaked' letters on Twitter?

[Manwork04]

Wasn't the 5USPORT issue explained in the 'leaked' letters on Twitter?

Not really mate, they basically said what the process was not what DB and KT netted, this was published by the Trust which claimed that both KT and DB both got £1.1m each and the rest ended up in BDJ.
I don’t know if they are claiming any wrong doing but I don’t see anything illegal and would be amazed if our owners would be that stupid, KT and DB aren’t like Cardozy.
What piššing the trust off is they claim KT and DB haven’t spent a penny in real terms and refuse to make transparent what the club will end up with after the land deal goes through.
This is also my stance, if you hadn’t noticed 😎

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Not really mate, they basically said what the process was not what DB and KT netted, this was published by the Trust which claimed that both KT and DB both got £1.1m each and the rest ended up in BDJ.
I don’t know if they are claiming any wrong doing but I don’t see anything illegal and would be amazed if our owners would be that stupid, KT and DB aren’t like Cardozy.
What piššing the trust off is they claim KT and DB haven’t spent a penny in real terms and refuse to make transparent what the club will end up with after the land deal goes through.
This is also my stance, if you hadn’t noticed

In real terms, they haven't spent a penny, it's all loaded to the club in a circa £7m loan which will be increased to circa £10m when the East Stand is completed.
The circa £10m will be repaid to them when the land deal is sorted and the club will then be free of any 'substantial', if not all, debt?

[Manwork04]

In real terms, they haven't spent a penny, it's all loaded to the club in a circa £7m loan which will be increased to circa £10m when the East Stand is completed.
The circa £10m will be repaid to them when the land deal is sorted and the club will then be free of any 'substantial', if not all, debt?

Yes agreed but it’s very heavily stacked in our owners favour, it’s clear now why they never walked away.
The owners need to come out and tell us what is in it for the club if the deal goes through.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Yes agreed but it’s very heavily stacked in our owners favour, it’s clear now why they never walked away.
The owners need to come out and tell us what is in it for the club if the deal goes through.

Why is it in the owners favour?
The club will have the new East Stand including the 'facilities' and subsequent income from them.
The club will have income from whatever the deal percentage of the profit is agreed with the council regarding the land, be that from the initial sales/build or the subsequent leasing.
The club owns that percentage, the current 'owners' manage it on behalf of the club.
To be honest, I don't see where the problem is, unless certain people believe that the owners will run off with the funds/percentage once it's all completed, which would be illegal wouldn't it, because it belongs to the club?

[guest3338]

Why is it in the owners favour?
The club will have the new East Stand including the 'facilities' and subsequent income from them.
The club will have income from whatever the deal percentage of the profit is agreed with the council regarding the land, be that from the initial sales/build or the subsequent leasing.
The club owns that percentage, the current 'owners' manage it on behalf of the club.
To be honest, I don't see where the problem is, unless certain people believe that the owners will run off with the funds/percentage once it's all completed, which would be illegal wouldn't it, because it belongs to the club?

That's the 64 million dollar question. The council dont want to get it wrong again. I suspect the one thing every single supporter of NTFC is in agreement over is that the club needs to significantly benefit from the deal.
In this instance, what's your particular definition of significant DC?