Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Who has most to gain from all of this?

Very good question. One that is now impossible to answer. I’m sure you’re no wiser that any of us regarding who has what designs on what.

It’s only natural that the owners of a football club should attempt to maximise their income. Only time will tell if that process reaps rewards for the long term prospects of the club. If we end up with a decent end product, with additional training facilities, a lot of people would be happy with that. Their job is to follow a model that secures the long term future of the club. After all, the land was never ours to start with. So it would not have reaped any rewards for us under a different regime.

[everbrite]

Evidently you didn't listen to the conversation. The person who's integrity you're calling into question was clearly recognised by people in the room and genuine, and was joined by & talking about various other people who have been around since the trust started.

Looks like another loose (Trust?) cannon? I don't know who Gomez is but a brief look at his 15 posts suggest he is very anti KT which is fair enough from an opinion pov. Unfortunately his views are so one sided that he offers no debate to the discussion. Then he frequently tells people to wake up and smell the coffee . Perhaps he is the one not waking up and failing to smell the coffee!

[Gomez]

Not a member of the Trust and never have been.  I've been around with the same username for many years, including back to Cobblers Comments. Maybe before your time Everbright?  Sadly (or otherwise) I don't have the time or inclination to post here tens of thousands of times, what with work, family and generally having a life.  Just feel the need to call out the BS (similar suspects going back to Cardoza days it should be added) as a lifelong Cobblers fan that's sick of the club being shafted.

[Welly Cobb]

I haven't got a firm opinion on Kelvin Thomas. I think the truth is somewhere between, 'Wants the best for the club' and 'Wants to make a profit' and you can put him nearer to one end or the other scale if you like. However, reading the posts from the board members of the trust as discussed in the open meeting, I know I would not trust any of those people with the club in the slightest.

[Tom]

Not a member of the Trust and never have been.  I've been around with the same username for many years, including back to Cobblers Comments. Maybe before your time Everbright?  Sadly (or otherwise) I don't have the time or inclination to post here tens of thousands of times, what with work, family and generally having a life.  Just feel the need to call out the BS (similar suspects going back to Cardoza days it should be added) as a lifelong Cobblers fan that's sick of the club being shafted.

You want to call out BS and don’t want to be shafted but you’re ok with being lied to by a group of people who threaten and abuse our own fanbase?

[guest3494]

I think there’s genuine reason for a trust extraordinary general meeting isn’t there?
Let’s face it.
With Simon resigning, are there even enough people left on the board from a constitutional rule point of view? I’m not certain, but I believe there are minimum number requirements that potentially are now below this.
With nothing being said about the reported bid, it could be just this… a piece of sensational journalism to stir the pot. Surely, the Trust, could have turned up at the open forum to deny or confirm and present their master plan?
The members of the Trust, not the board, the members are clearly not being asked about any actions taken or are they sworn to silence too?

My opinion is the current Trust is no longer doing what it claims to be there for and to this end should hold an EGM to allow everyone to understand what their strategic plans are.

The minutes of which should be published for all fans to understand.

A fair request?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

I haven't got a firm opinion on Kelvin Thomas. I think the truth is somewhere between, 'Wants the best for the club' and 'Wants to make a profit' and you can put him nearer to one end or the other scale if you like. However, reading the posts from the board members of the trust as discussed in the open meeting, I know I would not trust any of those people with the club in the slightest.

You’ve hit the nail clean on the head there Welly Cobb.

I would completely oppose the current Trust board and its hangers on from being anywhere near the club.

[BackOfTheNet]

I think there’s genuine reason for a trust extraordinary general meeting isn’t there?
Let’s face it.
With Simon resigning, are there even enough people left on the board from a constitutional rule point of view? I’m not certain, but I believe there are minimum number requirements that potentially are now below this.
With nothing being said about the reported bid, it could be just this… a piece of sensational journalism to stir the pot. Surely, the Trust, could have turned up at the open forum to deny or confirm and present their master plan?
The members of the Trust, not the board, the members are clearly not being asked about any actions taken or are they sworn to silence too?

My opinion is the current Trust is no longer doing what it claims to be there for and to this end should hold an EGM to allow everyone to understand what their strategic plans are.

The minutes of which should be published for all fans to understand.

A fair request?

To be honest, I don't care about the semantics of whether the Trust are fulfilling the requirements of their constitution as I think it undermines more fundamental issues about their conduct and strategy (plus it reinforces their bunker mentality; "Look, they are even criticising us for our structure now").

As I'm not a member it's not for me to make calls for an EGM either, however what I would say is if the Trust have the courage of their convictions they should be prepared to face their members and tell them what the hell they are up to. A face to face meeting would also allow them to gauge the strength of feeling amongst their wider membership and, if they really want credibility and buy in for their mysterious plans, they should open it up to the wider supporter base too.

I feel the Trust are at an existential tipping point, with Derek and John holding hands like Thelma and Louise as they hurtle towards the precipice (now there's an image you won't be able to unimagine  ).

I know I'm seen as "anti Trust" but I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time - I'm pro-Trust, I want us to have a Trust and I'm proud that supporters trusts in general started at our club - I just cannot agree with the methods or the conduct of the current board.

I don't know what it is they have cooked up, but the fact that Simon, a moderate, reasonable and above all sensible man, quit 2 or 3 days before the supposed bid was made makes me worry more about what they are up to. Of course, the timing could just be a coincidence (and as Simon has said he doesn't want to say any more about it I won't disrespect his wishes by asking) but as an outside observer the timing of the two would make it quite a coincidence.

If the Trust are to survive this they need to say something now. If their plans make sense then people will back them. If they don't make sense and no one backs them they need to have the humility to back down, because if they push on in defiance of the wishes of the wider support they are finished.

[guest3494]

To be honest, I don't care about the semantics of whether the Trust are fulfilling the requirements of their constitution as I think it undermines more fundamental issues about their conduct and strategy (plus it reinforces their bunker mentality; "Look, they are even criticising us for our structure now").

As I'm not a member it's not for me to make calls for an EGM either, however what I would say is if the Trust have the courage of their convictions they should be prepared to face their members and tell them what the hell they are up to. A face to face meeting would also allow them to gauge the strength of feeling amongst their wider membership and, if they really want credibility and buy in for their mysterious plans, they should open it up to the wider supporter base too.

I feel the Trust are at an existential tipping point, with Derek and John holding hands like Thelma and Louise as they hurtle towards the precipice (now there's an image you won't be able to unimagine  ).

I know I'm seen as "anti Trust" but I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time - I'm pro-Trust, I want us to have a Trust and I'm proud that supporters trusts in general started at our club - I just cannot agree with the methods or the conduct of the current board.

I don't know what it is they have cooked up, but the fact that Simon, a moderate, reasonable and above all sensible man, quit 2 or 3 days before the supposed bid was made makes me worry more about what they are up to. Of course, the timing could just be a coincidence (and as Simon has said he doesn't want to say any more about it I won't disrespect his wishes by asking) but as an outside observer the timing of the two would make it quite a coincidence.

If the Trust are to survive this they need to say something now. If their plans make sense then people will back them. If they don't make sense and no one backs them they need to have the humility to back down, because if they push on in defiance of the wishes of the wider support they are finished.

Superb post mate!
100% agree

[MCHammer]

I don't know what it is they have cooked up, but the fact that Simon, a moderate, reasonable and above all sensible man, quit 2 or 3 days before the supposed bid was made makes me worry more about what they are up to. Of course, the timing could just be a coincidence (and as Simon has said he doesn't want to say any more about it I won't disrespect his wishes by asking) but as an outside observer the timing of the two would make it quite a coincidence.

Here's the thing that irritates me a bit when Trust Board Members resign but don't want to comment on it.  If an individual feels strongly enough  to resign over matters, the issues don't just disappear the moment they resign.  We are still left with a poorly functioning Trust Board and the impact of the decisions they are going to carry on making.

Remember these individuals have been very vocal in publicly defending the Trust over many years and yet decide to keep their counsel when there is clearly something they should be publicly criticising. 

For example, what if the Trust Board have actually got into bed with Cilldara or A.N.Other developer that has no real interest in the club?  Do you think you should be told about that? 

[Merry Comrade]

I truly believe that there should be a democratic solution to the impasse that currently exists within the Trust. If the majority of members are opposed to the actions of the current board (as I believe is the case) surely a challenge could be made within the rules and constitution that the trust currently operates under. If a group of committed trust members were willing to put themselves forward to challenge the board and to seek election in their stead there must be a process that allows them to mount such a challenge. It may have to wait until the AGM or it may be possible to do this through another route. I am sure ex board members who post on this forum will have enough knowledge of the constitution to advise on how this could happen. A possible alternative would be for current holders of key positions on the board to resign if they knew that willing and able trust members were waiting in the wings to take their place and lead the Trust in another direction.

[BackOfTheNet]

Here's the thing that irritates me a bit when Trust Board Members resign but don't want to comment on it.  If an individual feels strongly enough  to resign over matters, the issues don't just disappear the moment they resign.  We are still left with a poorly functioning Trust Board and the impact of the decisions they are going to carry on making.

Remember these individuals have been very vocal in publicly defending the Trust over many years and yet decide to keep their counsel when there is clearly something they should be publicly criticising. 

For example, what if the Trust Board have actually got into bed with Cilldara or A.N.Other developer that has no real interest in the club?  Do you think you should be told about that? 

You make a valid point but I like GPC because he seems like a very decent bloke. As a decent bloke I wouldn't expect him to betray the confidence of his former colleagues, so I'd feel a bit hypocritical asking him to do so when he's made it clear he doesn't want to discuss it, as much as my nosy side would love to know what happened!

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

For example, what if the Trust Board have actually got into bed with Cilldara or A.N.Other developer that has no real interest in the club?  Do you think you should be told about that? 

Any board that is representative of its membership, be it voluntarily or employed has to consult its members before making any decision that could impact on the credibility of the organisation itself. You have a responsibility to those that worked towards its creation. But more importantly to those who trust you to carry out THEIR wishes.

The club has come out fighting now. Their response better be pretty much fùcking spectacular. Or they are bollòxed, and will remain synonymous with this giant fùckstorm.

[MCHammer]

You make a valid point but I like GPC because he seems like a very decent bloke. As a decent bloke I wouldn't expect him to betray the confidence of his former colleagues, so I'd feel a bit hypocritical asking him to do so when he's made it clear he doesn't want to discuss it, as much as my nosy side would love to know what happened!

Don't get me wrong I agree with everything you say about GPC and my comments weren't solely aimed at him though his resignation is the catalyst for them.

My point is this.  All individuals that join the Trust board do so I believe to do the right thing by the club and it's supporters.  Hopefully that's true though I would question whether some, mainly the co-opts and advisors have a large degree of self interest/importance.

You then spend years on the Trust Board supporting and enabling decisions to be made that consistently creep down the wrong path.  All the while you publicly defend those decisions to the hilt calling others "anti-trust" who disagree or question.  You support an environment that is less about consultation and more about what the Board believe right.

Then you reach a point where actually you can no longer support the board decisions and resign.  Essentially wash your hands of the situation and walk away.  I'm saying what happened to doing the right thing for the club and supporters? 

[BackOfTheNet]

Don't get me wrong I agree with everything you say about GPC and my comments weren't solely aimed at him though his resignation is the catalyst for them.

My point is this.  All individuals that join the Trust board do so I believe to do the right thing by the club and it's supporters.  Hopefully that's true though I would question whether some, mainly the co-opts and advisors have a large degree of self interest/importance.

You then spend years on the Trust Board supporting and enabling decisions to be made that consistently creep down the wrong path.  All the while you publicly defend those decisions to the hilt calling others "anti-trust" who disagree or question.  You support an environment that is less about consultation and more about what the Board believe right.

Then you reach a point where actually you can no longer support the board decisions and resign.  Essentially wash your hands of the situation and walk away.  I'm saying what happened to doing the right thing for the club and supporters? 

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's a tricky one to negotiate, isn't it?

[guest3494]

Don't get me wrong I agree with everything you say about GPC and my comments weren't solely aimed at him though his resignation is the catalyst for them.

My point is this.  All individuals that join the Trust board do so I believe to do the right thing by the club and it's supporters.  Hopefully that's true though I would question whether some, mainly the co-opts and advisors have a large degree of self interest/importance.

You then spend years on the Trust Board supporting and enabling decisions to be made that consistently creep down the wrong path.  All the while you publicly defend those decisions to the hilt calling others "anti-trust" who disagree or question.  You support an environment that is less about consultation and more about what the Board believe right.

Then you reach a point where actually you can no longer support the board decisions and resign.  Essentially wash your hands of the situation and walk away.  I'm saying what happened to doing the right thing for the club and supporters? 

I reckon you’ve hit the nail on the head here.
Two specific vocal characters, one who bullies and threatened, the other rants and accuses.
Who knows how much their views are shaping what was once an admirable organisation?

[CobblerForever]

Then you reach a point where actually you can no longer support the board decisions and resign.  Essentially wash your hands of the situation and walk away.  I'm saying what happened to doing the right thing for the club and supporters? 

For clarity, you can't wash your hands of acts or omissions carried out by the Board whilst you were a member of the Board. You may ask for an indemnity from the Board you have left but this may not be forthcoming or have legal force.

Sorry.

[JollyCobbler]

The reason they don’t communicate or ask the fans is because they aren’t supported by the majority. It’s a small group who purport to have the best interests of the club at heart but have gone too far.

They should start a Phoenix club like some of them wanted in 2013.

If they haven't asked the questions then how can you know they wouldn't be supported by a majority? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is solely your opinion rather than a fact.

[JollyCobbler]

I haven't got a firm opinion on Kelvin Thomas. I think the truth is somewhere between, 'Wants the best for the club' and 'Wants to make a profit' and you can put him nearer to one end or the other scale if you like. However, reading the posts from the board members of the trust as discussed in the open meeting, I know I would not trust any of those people with the club in the slightest.

I would imagine this is 'Nail on Head.' Anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't begrudge KT and co turning a healthy profit before riding off into the sunset. In the end they'll be judged on the health of the club when they exit; outstanding debts, league status, condition of East Stand etc. We'd all like the stand to have been sorted before now, and preferably to be established in League 1, but beyond this... it's a question of wait and see.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

If they haven't asked the questions then how can you know they wouldn't be supported by a majority? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this is solely your opinion rather than a fact.

 

You can’t be serious. I absolutely agree in essence you are right. But what in your opinion would happen if they had the spine to put their behaviour and their actions to the test? I go to every home game, plus I attend most away games. I speak to a sizeable cross section of our support on the train and at matches. I could count those that I’ve come across, on the fingers of one hand after a sawmill accident who agree with their actions.