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.

I’ve since done a few LF tests and all been negative. Previously I’d have said I had man flu as just feel a bit shit with a headache and a blocked but runny nose. I hope everyone else is ok too but hadn’t really thought about it given the pub we were in was rammed.

My own fault really as I had more proxies than I was allowed and only needed 20% majority to carry it. I had about 16% within the rules (more if those who nominated me had included but it is what it is). the thing with changing the rules you need 20% of the whole membership which is around 15k to agree at an AGM. Then the FCA have to approve them. Probably a challenge too far given the low turnout.

I did. Think I got the dreaded Rona not long after as I’ve not been 100% since. Had three proxy votes but my motion didn’t pass. Reckon there was 25 people there including 7 board members. Whole thing was a bit weird down to the venue. Accounts were provided and about 2 minutes to read before voting them through. Lots of “achievements” over last two years. Although to be fair Thomas’s update was very good around season tickets and other fan related issues. They’ve spent 23k in last year with no verbal explanation and not had a chance to dissect the accounts but cba as I’m bombed at work. kept it cordial and said why I’d raised the issues (not personal attacks, foundation of a strong trust etc). Some of the board were fairly receptive to parts of what I said around communication / transparency issues. Greg inferred they’d just change rules to another sponsorship organisation at one point. He went down in my estimation but that’s between me and him for now. there was a q and a session which didn’t reveal much. Asked if they could pick up castore quality with the club (on behalf of another member). They said they would. Alex asked if I’d help with the rules at the end which was a surprise. Was expecting minutes but not seen anything as yet and not sure if that was an appeasement. Meh. Was expecting an update from the FSA but last I heard it was with their legal advisors. had a nice walk in Jesmond though and got a Chinese on the way home so that was nice.

apparently this is the last day to ask for a proxy (despite the method not being advertised anywhere and this being contrary to the rules). form here. DM me for my email / number anyone miss it and you can email them and I’ll give you my details and I’ll argue it tomorrow. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdwPtaKXQiP35iKz0E5yIM26vISl4vtUa0QlDq6zFLNGpECsw/viewform

I'm expecting them to tweet out on Monday a "reminder" to the one email notification. I confirmed with Greg my motion of no confidence is in and will be heard. Had an interesting chat with him about it and a few other things yesterday. Anyone who is a member and can't go tuesday but still wants a vote on any issue (including the motion of no confidence) can dm me and I can tell you what needs to be done. I'll probably give a more detailed account in here or on twitter than they do so probably won't miss much.

Just wait till I rock up at the AGM with my briefcase 😂 😂 😂

I can see both sides of the debate too and I attempted for four months to appeal to the board's better judgment (in private) before frustration got the better of me. Not lacking in tolerance but hugely frustrated - it's not like I didn't give the whole board a solid rationale (and point them to the exact rules repeatedly). I raised some issues, followed the process, tried to follow the next bit of the process, asked for information entitled to etc etc. I don't assume anything about anyone's time commitments, however they volunteered and upon understanding the role I would have thought the path of least resistance would be the one to follow (i.e. compliant with the rules) as opposed to pushing back on every little thing every time which ultimately exacerbated the issues. I haven't got a problem with any of the individuals and appreciate the role they do, although I disagree with the way in which they are doing it and attempted to affect change (at a time when election nominations had closed). The risks and failure to follow the rules are genuinely significant enough to get the Trust struck off the FCA's register and anyone with malicious intent could have easily gone down that route. I didn't and whilst I informed the FCA and FSA I set out some mitigations to them also. I can't comment on the previous Trust as didn't know one existed until 2019 when I joined. I'm obviously aware of some of those who were on it through social media and research. I mean the secretary has been in place for more than 10 years so should know what is required... If / when the opportunity arises I may run and endeavour to ensure the rules are followed and that members are engaged (my two fundamental criticisms). I only flagged the issue as I'd volunteered to be part of the council. The thing is, when you actually take the time to read the rules the Trust has the potential to be structured like a business and should operate as such - the board doesn't have to do everything and can appoint sub-groups at any time - the board is about signing things off. I mean as an example I emailed them when I noticed the date error and highlighted they werent giving members time to make a resolution because of the notification - got a response that said 14 days notice is required (which is a genuine conflict in the rules) - I was making an observation in the hope it might affect change but get nothing in response. As much as I enjoy this debate I'm not a fan of typing after a full day's graft so will bow out for now - maybe let's get a pint and have a proper chat about it at some point in the future (and then I can secure your vote )

I watched the x-files and don't remember the millennium group (i was youngish tbf) You're probably right in terms of the "value" of the Trust right now, which is kind of my point - imagine how valuable it should be (and not in a financial context although as the richest club in the world...). It should be regularly engaged with members (and the wider community), it should liaise with the club and feedback to fans, it should be leading and communicating on issues like the crush at Leeds, safe standing i.e., all the things that fans want which are proactive as well as reactionary. And this is before any footballing reforms - imagine the current Trust board sitting opposite the club with a "golden share" or equivalent. We'd never know, have any confidence or understand what was going on - well I doubt that I would.

I understand where people think that it's sad or disproportionate but I think it comes down to some basics for me in terms of communication, visibility and following the rules. For four months I tried to mitigate several risks to the Trust (in my own time and not as a board member) but was met with resistance, challenge and failure to follow their (not mine) rules. They've wasted more of my time than the whole board attending a meeting per month for a 12 month period when they could have just followed the rules and not wasted anyone's time (accounts still haven't been provided despite the FSA advising they were in breach of their rules). Somewhere, someone (or someone's) made a conscious decision to basically say "fuck you" - that's fine but there's a consequence to that. I didn't stand previously because I didn't have time to commit to it as I know what's required - it's basically like being a director of a company - and let's be clear, they did volunteer. They want this responsibility. Unfortunately if you're going to be responsible then you have to be accountable per not just the rules but the regulations (laws) which govern being a Trust board member. But ultimately I'm a member. I pay my subs and it's me (and every other member) they are accountable to. If I don't do it I don't see anyone else doing it and as a club why the fuck would they engage with an organisation with little credibility amongst their membership who can't get the basics right. If good men sit idly by and all that...

I plan to make them give a fuck, not least because I do...