Greg

In public they've tried to hide everything. There's been an ongoing investigation by the local council that is responsible for the safety certificate at the stadium - as part of that process the Trust provided evidence of eye witness accounts - and during that process SWFC decided to reduce the capacity before any formal decision or imposition was made - effectively agreeing the stadium as was for our game was unsafe. They will now go through a process to try and put place relevant measures to ensure it is safe, and once they are in place will seek agreement from the council to go back to full capacity.

Not really, quite a normal reaction if you've messed up to seek to immediately volunteer a remedy before something is imposed and before you can put any measures in place to counter what might be coming. They will now be trying to do the latter before trying to seek agreement from the Council SAG to go back to full capacity. Reaction from Sheff Weds fans has been insane, can't go into detail but some of the first hand accounts that were sent in were harrowing, and all of these were sent onto the club and SWFC etc. SWFC didn't really want to know and have tried to do and say as little as possible throughout this process. It's an old ground, I'm sure with better crown management it could be okay, other grounds are like this, Elland Road and Turf Moor in particular.

Drop me a line and we can look into this.

No idea - would have to go back and have a look. Membership numbers remain very healthy - one of the biggest in the UK for a supporters Trust.

This is a short pulse survey to assist in ongoing engagement with the club but we’ll still run the much more detailed annual survey at the end of the season. We have ran member and non member surveys before on topical issues - so I wouldn’t rule out doing it again.

They do e-tickets (scanned PDF on phone) in some of the corporate areas but no doubt it's one of many areas of the club that needs an upgrade after many years of neglect.

https://www.nufctrust.co.uk/news/member-update-ticketing-survey/

Fewer people is the easy response usually, though in some cases the situation will dictate it may be the only option.- better crowd management can consist of all sorts of techniques and management measures to ensure safety of the crowd, needs proper management. There's a whole host of theories and experts out there on this.

You are spot on there - but this is why these old grounds with no potential for investment for ability to improve given how they were build need far better crowd management procedures in place.

More good work from NUST (I would say that), standing up for NUFC fans on important matters like this, but this sort of stuff is a prime example of the good work the trust does. Sheffield Wednesday didn't want to know, and working with the club the trust really pushed on this to get answers.

It will all be sorted.

Hmm that’s out of date! It was updated so not sure what’s happened there. I resigned earlier this year - Thomas Concannon is interim Chair and a new Chair will be appointed after the next set of elections.

I am not the Chair. My personal opinion is not the view of the Trust. The same as my personal views are not the views of my employer. My post here are as Greg, the person that’s been on this message board for over 20 years, not as a representative of the Trust. Obviously there is an association there.

Fixed that for you. I am not the Trust.

That's true. That figure reflects the amount donated by individuals, each individual transaction for example had a processing fee taken by the card payment and direct debit processing merchants. I agree this is misleading.

I can 100% guarantee no one is taking an appearance fee. Obviously the Stand running their own events don't have to hire their own venue so costs will be a lot lower. Trust Board members have to pay £20 to attend.

Thank you - I probably do get overly defensive and should rise above it and calm down. Is many years of being prodded from every direction and more often than not it being uninformed or based on lies posted on social media. We've even had people getting aggressive and in the face of board members near SJP on match days when they've been enjoying a pint with their mates, repeating utterly made up nonsense they've got worked up about on social media. All pre-takeover mind. The Trust isn't perfect, it has loads of areas it really can and should do better but does have a good degree of impact and influence on various things and is very good at standing up for members when they get in touch and need help with a major problem. The Trust often underestimates the complexities of running a 14,000 odd strong member organisation and the challenge of communicating with those members when it's ran by a small group of volunteers in their spare time and those members often expect it to act like a very well funded outfit with full time professional staff.

Yes - that's correct. Mainly on setting up the pledge scheme, the legal advice needed to set it up and all other associated cost with set up, also included in this is the day to day admin costs (email, MS Teams, web hosting), also includes legal fees for the Trust's barrister for analysis and input into the takeover sent to the Premier League. This is from Trust held funds, entirely separate to any money raised through the 1892 Pledge Scheme.

I agree that was very transparent - remember it well! But there is a big difference between operating as a unconstituted group in that way and as a registered organisation etc. For example the Trust can't do this - the rules the govern the Trust do not allow it as it is prohibited from publishing any form of balance sheet or accounts unless it has been audited by the Trusts appointed qualified accountants- and accounts are only audited once a year. It would be prohibitively expensive for accounts to be audited on a monthly rolling basis.

Events cost money to put on. Any profits to the the nominated charities and the Trust.

Reasonable questions or posts get reasonable response.

Yeh - for something that take me 20 seconds to type while multi tasking is a bit different to going back through emails etc and researching stuff.

The Trust decided not to recover all administrative fees and took a small hit on costs to ensure the overall Pledge Scheme amount raised didn't go below £200,000.

And all the previous emails about ending the scheme, you've read the accounts, the charity proposals and all the linked documents such as Pledge Committee meeting minutes etc. and still don't understand? If you have a genuine question - email [email protected]

No I can't I'm afriad as I'm busy at work. Read all the documents linked in the various emails (which include going back to the emails and documents in relation to ending the scheme and the previous vote). If you want to ask the Trust a question email [email protected]