Geordie2302

Or just a partial one... I only seem to get a response where (and maybe I'm reading too much into it) they think they are getting one over on me i.e., saying it's 14 days notice required for an AGM, when my point, although initially poorly worded in haste, was around not allowing members sufficient time to raise resolutions in line with the rules...

I emailed Greg, and got a response, It's only 14 days required to give notice of an AGM (not sure about two at once) but the rules also say members can only raise resolutions 28 days before an AGM (so a conflict in the rules). I raised a resolution by way of a motion of no confidence in december and have asked repeatedly for them to clarify receipt and that it will be discussed (seconded by several) - keep getting a stock "i will email you soon..."

https://mailchi.mp/8a68a379b338/notice-of-annual-general-meetings?e=44af82a042 NUST have announced 2 AGMs (the delayed and this year's) without giving members the required notice period to be able to submit resolutions (28 days) and can't even get the day/date right - 22 February is a Tuesday, not a Thursday so fuck knows when it actually is... It's just really really poor.

Aren’t they looking at a sale because he’s out of contract in 6 months ie last chance to get a fee for him? money talks. Don’t believe the bollocks they won’t sell. Glazers are money oriented - you don’t let assets leave for nothing.

Somebody mentioned this on Twitter and that the ticket turnaround time was 48 hours to resolve. Not helpful when you only have two days to vote

Bloke's a grade C melon (doesnt even make it to grade A...)

Unreal if it's us - unreal that we're in contention to be fair.

I'd not seen it on here but Kev's stuff is normally spot on and he's done some smaller pieces since he changed Jobs. I think it's great to see this type of analysis but tbh I think you can see it on the pitch. It's not the same lacklustre performances, yes there's individual mistakes and game management issues but they're underpinned by general neglect of fitness from mr Bruce. We looker better on the ball and if we get the rub of the green once I think that'll be enough impetus (with some new faces) to keep us up...

To thrive under KP?

that's genuinely what I set out to try and avoid but we are where we are! and that was the message that went out publicly (which in principle is fine). However, the rules have only just been made available and the non-members haven't seen them or been told that the scheme is potentially ending via a member vote (a month after the meeting decision to end it) so they have no opportunity to join the trust and vote - it would have been the decent / courteous / right thing to do in my view.

I totally understand that - but saying something doesn't make it true or in this case lawful. Then having some rules which are ambiguous at best would give grounds for challenge. I suppose my point is that the Trust should be aware of this and mitigating these risks with some pretty simple things - a communication to everyone who has pledged (not necessarily a vote but a message at least), giving pledgers time to join before a vote (let's say 4 weeks so it can hit people's pay day's for the joining fee), having a reasonable amount of time to vote with notice (ie not two days) and a set of rules which don't look like they were written the day before they were released and 8 months after the scheme started.

It's ludicrous and to get an email reminder as well (more comms than usual tbf). Worst thing about it for me is that they're only consulting members and not everyone who has pledged. If I was a pledger and not a member and I find out the scheme is ended without any communication or consideration I'd be livid. It probably leaves them open to legal challenge. Imagine sticking in £50 a month thinking you're going to help buy a share in the club and then not even getting told it's ending or seeing the rules (which miraculously appeared the day members get two days to vote on the future of it). Whole thing is a shambles in my view.

has there been anything more about him suing AS and MG?

I find myself nodding along as I read your post last night (joy of young children) and again this morning as I don't disagree in the main. I have voted, I always do - and I have no issue at all with the funds being given to charities as decided by members (members handing the money over is a great idea!). My issue is that the rules don't technically say that, even though that was the message given publicly. Personally I genuinely would like to see some of that money go to WorFlags and I respect their (your) standpoint, but I think the displays of late have been amazing increased my enjoyment and improved the (often flat) atmosphere and it looks fucking mint live and on TV, and there is provision in the rules to allow for that (and if proposed, seconded and then voted by members would happen). I understand what you mean about taking it with a pinch of salt but part of the issue is that this is the first time the pledge rules have been published (I've been asking for them for months). If they'd taken legal advice I expect there would have been no ambiguity. If they made them public they could have gathered feedback and mitigated the risks / closed the ambiguity and amended the rules. To a certain extent you have to place reliance on where you pay for expert / independent advice but it links into my skills point below. I genuinely don't have an endgame and I'm done with it now. It's out of my hands as I sent everything I'd communicated with the Trust to the FCA in December, but when I started to engage with the Trust (in August 2021) it started off very supportive. This was my last resort after trying to use multiple carrots and sticks. I ended up sending a three page complaint to FCA cross referenced to the Trust / FCA and FSA rules. The issues that I've talked about in public are only some of the things they haven't been doing / have been doing wrong and as I've said repeatedly to them and in public, they need to be transparent and own their actions. My approach was like "There's a potential issue here, this is what you might want to do about it". I was ignored. So I read the rules. Not because I wanted to pull them apart but to suggest that they followed the rules because of the associated risks. I pointed out a few other exposures that I could see and then started to ask for information I was entitled to as a member to see what they would do (fuck all basically). At each stage, in my view (and I'm sure theirs will be entirely different), I gave them an opportunity to either hold their hands up and say "Yeah, we got it wrong and that's what we'll do to fix it now and that's what we'll do going forward." but instead they either ignored the issues, argued them (which was an insult to mine and members' intelligence as they were saying things which were clearly untrue) or tried to make rules up to suit themselves. They didn't like it that I responded and challenged the shitty, ill thought out points they raised in response. I mean just on a basic human level they wouldn't respond as to why they thought it was fair that one candidate got asked different questions and the chair (another candidate) got the right of reply despite it impacting the election (at least 2 council members emailed to say they'd abstained to vote as a result). The FSA advised them to apologies to the lad (as did I) and they never did. At each stage I fully admit I got more frustrated and often had to temper my communications to them, but everything I'd set out was factual and, in my view reasonable. I was responding to their emails within hours as opposed to the weeks I waited for them. I waited 4 months before I said anything in public and that was only because I believe they made a deliberate misrepresentation about the AGM and why they didn't have one (9 months after it was supposed to have taken place). The reality is they either don't / didn't understand what the consequences of failing to follow the rules were or they don't like what they are. I've taken the same initial approach for the pledge scheme and made it clear I'm not going round in circles or challenging this time. I've said the rules are ambiguous and as written I think the amendment at AGM is needed (they disagree) and that 2 days is ridiculous because it doesn't give all members an opportunity and more importantly it doesn't give anyone who's not a member but has pledged an opportunity to join and vote (they haven't been notified that a vote is happening and the trust aren't going to notify - only members have been contacted). I've done my bit. Up to them now but I doubt they'll do anything. On the volunteer point, I can see where you're coming from but (and it's a big but in my view) the Trust rules set out what skills the board are required to have (that's the same with any corporate board and they are subject to the same requirements) ie accountants / solicitors etc. It also says that the board members (like most boards) can be remunerated. Somewhere a choice has been made not to do that but they've also made a choice not to delegate authority to other groups (a board should in my view have oversight and not be doing the doing). That's not to say you shouldn't have lay members but you would expect those members to place reliance on those members with that experience or to seek expert guidance. Again though this only works where the trust are transparent and communicate effectively. My additional challenges would be; why volunteer in the first place if 1) you're not prepared to understand the operating environment in which you're working in 2) don't have sufficient time to put to it 3) aren't prepared to listen to constructive (or indeed any challenge) and 4) be transparent in your decision making (ie the pledge arguments - a very small step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned). The secretary has been in place for a lot of years and he should know the requirements and also have a board training package in place so that on day one a new board member knows what's expected (in fact publish it so people know in advance FFS) - I genuinely have no sense if this happens or not. If that doesn't exist then as a minimum newly elected board members should read the rules (FCA, Trust and FSA) and it's not like you need a degree in astrophysics to understand them. I'm convinced there are board members who don't know that they are classed as directors and they have various legal obligations as such. What worries me more is that I believe there are some that know and don't seem to care. Where legal or external / independent advice is given and the board still aren't sure then, my probably over simplistic view is, let the members decide. But again this all needs to be underpinned by transparency ie there's this issue, we disagree / don't know, we've taken advice (at £ cost) and we are going to do X or we still aren't sure what do you think membership? [or some variation of this type of communication]. I never had any interest in being on the board which is why I've never put myself forward, was happy to provide advice and guidance as a council member but that disappeared after an initial meeting and some individuals were cherry picked for some "special project" as yet undisclosed to the masses. Part of that reason is I know what's required as a board member, the associated liability and time commitments. That being said I put significantly more time to this last year than the 12 board meetings I suspect were held. Another element I'm mindful of now is because, like you I, suspect I'd get particularly frustrated at being ignored on issues. Especially where I think the application of the rules isn't being followed. I'm all for it being a democratic system, but it has to be in line with the rules, transparent and equally as important it needs to be representative of the fanbase and the community. I even thought about running in the next round but it would be pointless because of what I've set out and the board's perception of me and, probably more importantly, unless they changed the election to be valid then you'd currently be voted in against the rules as the members were in 2021 and possibly 2020 (not checked tbf). It probably comes across like I'm bolshy as fuck but I'm not really. Like everyone I can get passionate and fired up and occasionally lose my shit (normally where NUFC are concerned) but ultimately the board has a remit to challenge one another and make sure they are compliant with the rules. I'd go further and say it's also their remit to be transparent and communicate effectively. I have got a motion of no confidence in against the board and secretary which should be presented at the next AGM, I gave them notice in December and they've already missed one AGM (which isn't allowed) so who knows what will happen. I suspect they won't want me to speak as I can demonstrate that they haven't complied with their legal obligations as a board, but I've followed the rules in making the resolution and having it seconded by other members. Difficult thing will be outcome - what would we do if my resolution is discussed and passed (there is provision within the rules to deal with it but would require people at the AGM to be willing to step forward). Ultimately they've fucked it because if they'd followed the rules and been transparent I wouldn't have any issue (and it would be difficult for anyone else to have). If the basics were nailed on then this wouldn't be happening. The thing which really pisses me off is that with the fanbase starting to pull together there is a real opportunity for the Trust to engage with the club in a really meaningful way, but having gone on this journey I have some real reservations as to the motivations of some of the board and have limited faith that as structured now, they'd follow the rules or engage effectively with the membership. Reading this thread has only reaffirmed some of the views I'd formed when dealing with this in isolation but that's not to say my views couldn't be changed if things changed which probably doesn't come across on the limit count on Twitter Slow morning at work

They're a membership organisation and the board are directors who can be struck off for not following the mutuals and benefits society act 1984 which is overseen by the financial conduct authority. I mean it's not even called NUST it's called the Newcastle United Supporters Society Limited (from memory). NUST is a brand name which they're allowed but all official documents and correspondence should have their registered name on it, which I don't think it does. There's some basic things like reasonableness and communications that they just seem to fail to get right every time and if you point it out their position is to ignore or challenge it which isn't the right way to deal with things like this. The issue with the pledge rules is that it isn't clear, its ambiguous, and in my view it's not 100% in line with the messages the Trust were giving out ie the Trust can't spend the money but there's provision in the rules that they can use 3% of the pledge to advertise and administer it despite admin costs for the payments pledged already being removed. It's not clear whether the vote should be at an AGM (my view is that it is, they say no) so I suggested that if they'd had legal advice (which I seriously doubt they did by the look of it, I could have written something much stronger) then that would make it clear. They said that they aren't required to get legal advice (ok but didn't you say you did when setting up the scheme?) and that they weren't obliged to share any even if they did (which in my view is wrong on the basis of transparency and I think that members are legally entitled to any advice a trust receives). I've raised a motion of no confidence in the board and secretary, hopefully to be discussed at the next AGM, but they didn't hold one in Feb 2021 and didnt tell members that they werent until Nov 2021! I know I bang on about this but I can't help but think there's an opportunity for the trust to play a massive role with he future of the club given the fan led review and I think they're going to fuck it up because the basics aren't being done. This is more important now than ever if we want to be able to hold the club accountable and have good dialogue then it has to start with being able to hold the trust accountable and them having good dialogue. Anyway that's my rant for the night, the FCA have got all the information. I'll keep plugging away and use their rules until I can't be arsed anymore and jack my membership, if it's that fucked there's genuinely no hope for it. If anyone wants the email address and a reference number to raise concerns with the FCA (and a template email) I'd be happy to share it.

The rules of the scheme were released in the email yesterday and having now had a chance to read all of the documents I've emailed the board as I think they're exposed on a number of fronts, not least the interpretation of their rules and how the vote should be undertaken at an AGM and not with 2 days notice to members... There are parts of minutes published in the email to members which set out the arguments as to why it shouldn't be closed down yet, some are reasonable and some aren't but it doesn't look to me like they've engaged with the club - which feels wrong and doesnt necessarily chime to Alex's whatsapp message to pledgers in November which said "I appreciate there hasnt been lots of communication on the 1892 Pledge Scheme. There is good reason for this. If you are still pledging - please stick with us for now on the pledge. We are working with the people we need to work with on something special - but out of respect for those people and their decision making process, I cannot say more at this time. Sorry that I cant give more info but I will be able to say more publicly soon - it is definitely worth keeping the pledge going for now if you are able to keep donating and pass on the message to others who are doing the same. Alex" I mean it raises another question if the meeting with the pledge guardians was in December why didnt he send out a message telling people that the guardians advice was to end the scheme and a vote was to be sought in the new year. Had a reasonable exchange of emails with Greg last night but I really can't be arsed to try and pull them apart again so I just fired what I thought to Greg, the board and the FCA and they can do (or not) with it what they want. My observation comes down to intent. The intent of the scheme was to purchase a share in the club. The intent now seems to be to provide the money to charity. Whilst both are written in the rules as options it's not an either or. I'd be very surprised if those rules have had any legal scrutiny or advice given against them. If the intent is to now wind up the scheme and provide the money to charity, which per rule 5.2 of the pledge rules says that the member vote should be made at an AGM. This is before you take into account the timeframe to vote. There could easily be people who don't access their emails (or twitter), there may be pledgers who aren't trust members who want to vote (and therefore must join the Trust) who aren't even aware of the intent... Interestingly the way the rules are written members could vote to change who receives the money so could in theory include organisations such as WorFlags (appreciating that they said no they weren't a charity). Maybe I am just being an arsehole but this really annoys the fuck out of me, if you're going to do something just do it in line with the rules, as fairly as you can and mindful of other people.

The only problem with this is I could set up a charity tomorrow (costs nothing - just need to do some paperwork and register it).

read the article - it says nothing has been filed with the parties and there isnt anything on https://www.judiciary.uk/court/high-court/ as of friday.

Nothing has been filed by Mike, SJH or anything filed against Staveley or the club (as at friday)

I said this a while ago in jest to access it, however since asking for the information which governs it to be released (which they have refused to do despite it being a requirement of their own rules which they are legally bound by) and it not being provided this is something I'd be concerned about, if it wasnt for the membership element. That being said I've set this all out to the FCA because you just cant ignore the rules or the membership...

I genuinely think they'd struggle to organise it

My guess would be that by shining a light on their governance failures they figure they may be in a bit of trouble. I asked for all the rules around the pledge and how it’s governed and they haven’t provided it (despite being required to give it to any member). That’s not to say that they shouldn’t have ceased payments and communicated the status and plans. There was a WhatsApp message a while ago (early Nov I think) to pledge advocates with what I read as a huge inference that they’re working with the club (they say something like the people we need to) to decide what to do with it… again not another good look.

the Trust are regulated by the FCA because they are a membership organisation and are designed to benefit the wider community. Their main income should be from fees (members are all shareholders in the Trust) and be directed as to how best utilise that income. They could in theory have their own office or even staff if they wanted to (and it was cost effective) but fundamentally you're right - the main function of a football fan's trust is to communicate effectively with the club and the fans (members and wider community...)

Being "that lad" from twitter I saw this and thought it might be useful explaining a couple of things. I didn't set out to do anything other than complain about the election from an issue raised by a NUST council member (not me). I followed the process that is set out in the election policy which was signed off by the board and the Trusts rules. They didn't want to know and tried to fob me off and not follow their rules (not mine). I didn't like that or the way they tried to do it which inferred taking legal action against me or that I was trying to "sue the trust". I kept details records of my interactions and meetings with them. I then started asking for things which any member could ask for and the Trust have to provide. It's written in the communities and benefits act 1984 for anyone who's really arsed to look. I reached out to a few people including Heron to try and understand what the training board members got as there are regulations that have to be followed for a Trust legally. I'm not sure what light you could paint me in as to the best of my knowledge we've met once where I alluded to a way in which the pledge scheme money "could" be accessed, one of several ideas we had whilst trying to engage fans to protest against the PL. This is even more relevant now given there doesn't seem to be any rules or processes around the scheme that have been shared with members (I have asked directly and they are required by their rules (105) which are on their website to provide bye-laws and policies to members when asked. All of my interactions with the board via email were tempered and factual - based on some emails I've seen from a subject access request they think I was "maliciously motivated". That just isn't the case. I work in assurance and know how important good governance is, it's literally nothing more than that. I didn't ask anyone for dirt on anyone (and believe I clarified my position to you when we exchanged messages which hopefully showed that) because I don't know who these people are or particularly care other than the lack of engagement. I voted based on the representations made in the statements as always. I don't have any individual issues with anyone and think Greg generally does well when I've seen him in the media. What clearly isn't working is compliance with the regulatory requirements and engaging the membership. The board members aren't "just volunteers" though they are directors and like all directors are subject to the requirements of directors of a company and are subject to the directors disqualification act when they are not complying with the regulations. Anyone who has paid to be a member is a shareholder. I doubt if many of the board are even aware of this as there's more than just the balance sheet not being available (however giving information / communicating to members is one of the key things they have to do and aren't). I mean that doesn't make for a strong Trust does it? My very first email about this was very much don't worry fella the trust have processes and rules in place that will sort this (they do but they aren't following them in many ways). The FSA advised them to do some simple things and they didn't do those either. Completely agree that fan / community engagement is the way forward and there are minutes taken but not published (last minutes published in 2020). I've got no axe to grind with any individuals on the board and despite any assertion otherwise this all stemmed from the board trying to ignore their own rules. I offered a solution to the initial problem to avoid this issue before the complaint went in, it was broadly if we (included myself as a council member) have fucked up then be transparent and get out in front of it and deal with it. This escalated when it became clear it wasn't just one set of rules they weren't following and they tried to make processes up (which they cant do). A strong trust has to have good governance, comply with the regulations and engage effectively with the membership (as a minimum) but should really engage with the fanbase and the wider community (and if I'm reading between the lines correctly then this was a very good suggestion and why you got one of my votes). The only real difference is that members have voting rights at annual general meetings (which have to be held annually) and special general meetings. Oh I fully admit that I can be an arsehole and probably am for not letting this go, but why should I? Four months I had to research and write detailed responses to their attempts to avoid the main issue and then all the other ones I flagged. This will ultimately benefit the trust and the membership in the long run even if it just means they get their house in order.