Geordie2302

And there was me thinking this was the most interesting part of that thread

There was about 25 including the 7 board members last year and if the description above about MM is true am pretty sure he was one of them who didn't like the commentary I made. the numbers they report are dubious at best (and was supposed to be better when moved to their "new system" which probably never got updated or discussed). Totally agree on fan engagement but after my dealings with them I feel only apathetic toward them and reckon I could sort any issue I had quicker and more efficiently myself (even in the auspices of supporter engagement)! Sounds like a big well done to those who attended from here is warranted!

Was going to but I’m working away and I can’t be arsed to try and get out of it to hear a load of excuses or dodging answers. The shame of it is there was about 25 people including most of the board (7) last year. I bet there’s a decent turnout this year because it’s at SJP and that will make the “biggest trust” sham appear reasonable. Happy to pass my vote onto a proxy who is attending if anyone wants it.

Which is a massive conflict for me. How can you be impartial or representative when you’re making money from exposure from fan issues.

There was four places available and only three applied hence elected unopposed (but I don’t think that was made clear anywhere). I genuinely thought about trying to change it from within, had some initial plans for an engagement strategy and sub groups so the board was more strategic and accountable etc but genuinely couldn’t be arsed with the thought of being a lone voice and I couldn’t bring myself to be associated with something that has no real integrity. Where I’ve raised issues in the past it was with a genuine desire to help the trust but I just feel apathetic toward it at the moment. I even flagged they hadn’t followed their own rules with the pledge scheme and the lack of consultation of members but they clearly don’t give a fuck and would rather bury their heads in the sand than deal with an (or even any) real issue.

To be fair, at least they’re doing it properly this time.

where does it say that Gregg as I've been through the rules a few times and can't recall this...

I think you’re right, this is exactly the type of issue the trust should be raising, not just with the club but the PL and the FSA, and we as fans have a role to support the trust in that. The difficulty around the club refunding people is that I don’t think its realistic, practical, or even appropriate as where would it end? The club have no actual liability or control over the change to fixtures or what arrangements people book or make and what they get used for. Imagine I’ve booked travel for Spurs and the games off so I ask club for a refund and get it but I’ve still got valid travel and accommodation that I could use? Some fans will be able to get refunds without the club involvement anyway and again the club would need to have some kind of monitoring process to ensure any replacement scheme they had wasn’t abused. it would be different if the club had some kind of involvement or control over the arrangements ie they owned the hotel or had made the travel arrangements but if that were the case I’d imagine they’d have a refund / exchange policy in place to cover fixture changes.

the thing which irks me the most is their lack of ability to follow their own rules. I'm not sure any consultation (despite several requests from members) ever happened. The minutes published say the guardians selected the four and there has been very little information released on this... Lack of transparency and lack of governance are big issues for the Trust. Obviously as a member i'd have liked to have been consulted about regional charities to be included and then a second time on distribution - neither of which take any real organisation: 1. Which charity would you like to see included (respond by xx date) 2. There is £200k (oddly round number) to distribute to the XX charities selected by members on xx date, what is your preference how would you like to see the money split: charity 1 [insert £value here] charity 2 [insert £value here] charity 3 [insert £value here] charity 4 [insert £value here] Quick add up of responses divided by number of responders gives a simple distribution model that would stack up and justifiable to members. Yes volunteers but I came up with that (based on rules they wrote and agreed) in about 30 seconds and to note it in a minute and publish the methodology should be business as usual...

Thomas is now the chair. Secretary has stood down and Greg resigned as chair but is still on board. Can’t remember the last communication about it to be fair. Wasn’t in update about members survey or the transition to the new system which didn’t seem to materialise…

Anyone who’s a member can request the latest balance sheet as at the current year end (which I think is July or august without checking). If they try and fob you off with the submitted ones to FRC say it’s the latest balance sheet you want and not audited accounts. im going to follow up with the FRC when I’m back from my holidays.

I think there has to be an overhaul because of tenures this round (including Alex I think) so nominations will be interesting. They also need the right skills sets as well (accountant, legal etc). I personally think to restore faith they only need to do three things 1 have the right skills sets 2. Engage better and more often (including communicating outputs like minutes, accounts or an annual report) 3. Be totally transparent. It would probably be massively useful to have a strategy as well but got to walk before you run.

Would make a great chair

I think I said it after the AGM. The accounts showed 23k spend with no detailed breakdown as to what. I doubt there’s anything dodgy happening but I doubt it’ll be in line with the rules that they drafted (because they were shit). The 20/21 accounts showed the pledge money collected separately from the operating expenditure but only up till their financial year end which was august I think. I don’t think anyone doubted their would be operating costs but the pledge money was supposedly untouchable and c3k of it was spent. Could have used some of their other cash to cover it but seemingly not. The difficulty with external audits is that they aren’t about transparency. They’re about whether what’s reported in the accounts is materially accurate (true and fair) not whether it was spent on something which benefits / is reported to members. nect AGM is Feb 2023 and elections should run till then and outcome be announced (if they follow the rules that is).

Given they spent 23k in their 21/22 financial year with no real explanation and then took c3k admin fees from the pledged money (although it was supposed to be ONLY used for purposes intended buy club or charitable donations). They may have inadvertently created a cash flow issue for themselves. Reality is we’ll never know unless they start to be transparent.