Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[Happinesstan]

2 hours ago, rickyprickles said:

 

Fertilized.

I think the witty response to the chat up line is "unfertilised".

[MarkyMark]

3 hours ago, Montey said:

Does the NUFC Trust actually have any of the money?

 

I thought it was a pledge to give money, but money would only be transacted if the target(s) were achieved.

 

If I am correct, then the NUFC Trust isn't actually in possession of any money to give away - hence winding up the pledge program should be as simple as telling people that their pledges no longer have to be honoured, that no more pledges will be taken, and that the campaign is being wound up.

 

If I am incorrect (that the Trust has received the money) then all of the money should be returned to those who pledged it, as it was pledge for a specific purpose and not for some plan-B option.  If those who pledged money wish to give it to a charity then they can and should do so, separate from any action by NUFC Trust once they have received their refund.

 

I will say, I always thought that, whilst the Pledge campaign was well intentioned, it was never going to succeed.  To achieve even a 1% ownership stake in a £300M company was going to require £3M, plus transaction costs (broker's fees, etc).  Even if NUFC Trust achieved pledges to the value of £3M (plus transaction costs), a 1% ownership stake was going to give them no influence within the board room - at best the ownership would have provided some fiduciary transparency, through annual reports (and £3M+ is a lot to pay to get an annual report).  Fan ownership/influence may be an achievable dream in lower leagues (for clubs worth less than £10M.  e.g.  10% stake in a £10M valued club), but it was never within the realms of reality for a club worth more than £100M.  The only way "fan ownership" would ever be achieved for higher value clubs is if a small number of very wealthy "fans" were to participate, but then those few individuals would seek to hold the dominant voices (as they put up the majority of the money) in which case most fans would have no say anyway.

The money was paid, not 'pledged' - with no refunds.  They've been very clear on that front. 

 

It never stacked up - why would Ashley sell even 1% of the club to potentially give himself further headaches?  When NUFC were floated under the Halls and Shepherds, they moved the AGM to London because they couldn't hack being questioned over their running of the club.  Ashley refused to answer questions when journalists and supporters bought SD shares and headed to the AGM.  Buy your tickets, buy your kits, buy your TV subscriptions - but make sure to keep your opinions out of our boardrooms.  There is no reason to believe that the new ownership will be any different - though I doubt they would be as aggressively arseholeish as the previous lot.

 

It was the fourth time in my memory where the idea of fan shareholding was seriously floated (Magpie Group in early '90s, floatation in '97, and by the NUST in 2009 to see if Ashley could be bought out).  Most people in the NE don't have the disposable income to chuck at club ownership - even less so only 1% so that a handful can continue in their fantasy of being fan leaders.  I'd assume that in their 'informal' discussion with the new owners they got a short shrift.  

 

Fan ownership of large clubs at this point would require significant government intervention to make it feasible, which I can't see happening any time soon.  Effectively, nationalisation before being handed over to supporters groups.  Seems unlikely.  Either that or the value of the clubs return to a pre-PL value.  Also seems unlikely at present.

 

The above is not an argument against Supporters' Trusts (which are A Good Thing, particularly when not hijacked for ego boosts), but an argument against the futility of trying to buy modern football clubs of any significant size.  Shame, as the fan-ownership model is the ideal for me.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by MarkyMark

[Guest HTT II]

I backed the pledge scheme and contributed and I’m very happy that local charities are going to benefit massively from it. It was a pipe dream to own a share in the club as fans, and very ambitious of the trust, but their intentions were good. 

[MarkyMark]

Yeah, it’s a lot of money going to local charities, so there’s definitely a positive note to the end of it.

 

Though it should be remembered that fans did hold shares in the club for a decade, not so long ago - and the most that it achieved was being able to ask the odd embarrassing question to Freddie Shepherd at an AGM.  Then Ashley bought the club, the supporters shares were bought back at significant losses for those who’d bought them, and the net result was very, very little. 

[Geordie2302]

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. 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Geordie2302

[TheGuv]

I must admit to being shocked by only having 2 days to register a vote.
 

I’ve not read all the detail and I wasn’t aware the vote had to be held at an AGM. Having been heavily involved in a voluntary role for a ‘Private company limited by guarantee without share capital’ I’d be incandescent if the Board didn’t do things by the book. Indeed, I’d be calling for a vote of no confidence in the board as it would go against the Articles of Association.

 

If the money goes to charity, then that’s great. But you have to do things properly! And if that means calling an EGM or waiting until the AGM, then so be it. I can’t really get my head around not doing things properly, especially if they ever want to be taken seriously by the new owners.

 

Sort it out please lads. Thank you.

[Joey Linton]

23 hours ago, Heron said:

Good suggestion this. Should put it to them

One of my mates who is a member has done today. 

[Geordie2302]

2 hours ago, TheGuv said:

I must admit to being shocked by only having 2 days to register a vote.
 

I’ve not read all the detail and I wasn’t aware the vote had to be held at an AGM. Having been heavily involved in a voluntary role for a ‘Private company limited by guarantee without share capital’ I’d be incandescent if the Board didn’t do things by the book. Indeed, I’d be calling for a vote of no confidence in the board as it would go against the Articles of Association.

 

If the money goes to charity, then that’s great. But you have to do things properly! And if that means calling an EGM or waiting until the AGM, then so be it. I can’t really get my head around not doing things properly, especially if they ever want to be taken seriously by the new owners.

 

Sort it out please lads. Thank you.

 

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.

[Heron]

1 hour ago, Geordie2302 said:

 

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.

 I feel it's important to remain a member so to retain the right to shape the organisation to how you'd prefer through the voting process. This was my feeling when I stepped forward for a role on the board, but that was fast dwindled away.

 

Personally, I will probably vote on this despite not paying into the pledge. It's not how I believe it should work, but it is (as I understand) what has always been outlined from the start, the same as the use of the cash generated, etc. So I won't criticise them for following it. 

 

The key aspects I take from your post(s) are the bits about the AGMs, processes and most importantly correspondence. I think I'd have done certain things differently and voiced my opinions on such matters whilst actively involved. I think in retrospect I could have gone about things slightly differently, but in all honesty, I also feel my views would have simply been diluted in favour of playing politics and that's not actually what I was interested in. I feel I listened to, and considered their views, and challenged when relevant, but there was never going to be a breakthrough given the certain dynamics, personalities and characters involved. 

 

However, whilst you're well within your rights to pull apart the legal wording and ambiguity you feel is there, for me it's these kinds of things that need to be addressed with a pinch of salt. There has to be a balance in that - these are simply volunteers who aren't necessarily trained or knowledgeable on outlining such processes, structure or reporting from a legal standing. Which I appreciate is why you pointed towards legal guidance and advice, but how are they to know what is and isn't good advice? So that also depends on the quality of any guidance they may have had. Which I'm sure they will have done.

 

Nonetheless, if this is being put to the trust in a constructive way, then it can only be for the good that any ambiguity is removed and subsequently the trust is more watertight for potential, future issues that may have arose.

 

That being said, I'm just not sure on the need to go to their governing bodies, personally. It all seems a bit much, but hey ho. Perhaps that's me being a bit blasé about the formalities of such an organisation. I guess that, now I'm out of it, I just don't pay as much interest. But, out of curiosity though what is your end game? Like would you consider running for a board position? Because perhaps some of the knowledge and experience you seem to have would be better utilised working from within the Trust and on the board rather than against as it currently seems?

 

That was the view I tried to take, but my short fuse was fast burned out, so perhaps you feel the same, I don't know? But I do think the trust needs to be more open to the constructive criticisms of it and easier to access (in person) for open communication. Hopefully, that'll help it to not stagnate and/or decline, and instead, grow.

 

Speaking more generally now, I'm just of the view that, this is all just, like, a bit too serious nowadays. I think Ashley did this to us. I feel the trust has lost direction of its bread-and-butter-fundamentals, and with that they risk losing the membership they have massively built. My feelings were made known from within, and I let down the voters who voted for me by sacking it off. However, now I spend my football time doing Wor Flags, going to the game and watching and playing footy, and not arguing and debating with people who have little interest in what I say, operating in a grey area of the fanbase. And finally, despite all the flaws in the modern game, it finally feels like supporting my team is getting back to being more like what it's supposed to be - fun, passionate and enjoyable. 

 

Anyways, I'm gannin to kip

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Heron

[Guest Biggsbond14]

Pretty ironic that on the last day ( 2 days for a fucking vote wtf) of voting there website is unreachable, pretty convenient that isn’t it 

[Geordie2302]

11 hours ago, Heron said:

 I feel it's important to remain a member so to retain the right to shape the organisation to how you'd prefer through the voting process. This was my feeling when I stepped forward for a role on the board, but that was fast dwindled away.

 

Personally, I will probably vote on this despite not paying into the pledge. It's not how I believe it should work, but it is (as I understand) what has always been outlined from the start, the same as the use of the cash generated, etc. So I won't criticise them for following it. 

 

The key aspects I take from your post(s) are the bits about the AGMs, processes and most importantly correspondence. I think I'd have done certain things differently and voiced my opinions on such matters whilst actively involved. I think in retrospect I could have gone about things slightly differently, but in all honesty, I also feel my views would have simply been diluted in favour of playing politics and that's not actually what I was interested in. I feel I listened to, and considered their views, and challenged when relevant, but there was never going to be a breakthrough given the certain dynamics, personalities and characters involved. 

 

However, whilst you're well within your rights to pull apart the legal wording and ambiguity you feel is there, for me it's these kinds of things that need to be addressed with a pinch of salt. There has to be a balance in that - these are simply volunteers who aren't necessarily trained or knowledgeable on outlining such processes, structure or reporting from a legal standing. Which I appreciate is why you pointed towards legal guidance and advice, but how are they to know what is and isn't good advice? So that also depends on the quality of any guidance they may have had. Which I'm sure they will have done.

 

Nonetheless, if this is being put to the trust in a constructive way, then it can only be for the good that any ambiguity is removed and subsequently the trust is more watertight for potential, future issues that may have arose.

 

That being said, I'm just not sure on the need to go to their governing bodies, personally. It all seems a bit much, but hey ho. Perhaps that's me being a bit blasé about the formalities of such an organisation. I guess that, now I'm out of it, I just don't pay as much interest. But, out of curiosity though what is your end game? Like would you consider running for a board position? Because perhaps some of the knowledge and experience you seem to have would be better utilised working from within the Trust and on the board rather than against as it currently seems?

 

That was the view I tried to take, but my short fuse was fast burned out, so perhaps you feel the same, I don't know? But I do think the trust needs to be more open to the constructive criticisms of it and easier to access (in person) for open communication. Hopefully, that'll help it to not stagnate and/or decline, and instead, grow.

 

Speaking more generally now, I'm just of the view that, this is all just, like, a bit too serious nowadays. I think Ashley did this to us. I feel the trust has lost direction of its bread-and-butter-fundamentals, and with that they risk losing the membership they have massively built. My feelings were made known from within, and I let down the voters who voted for me by sacking it off. However, now I spend my football time doing Wor Flags, going to the game and watching and playing footy, and not arguing and debating with people who have little interest in what I say, operating in a grey area of the fanbase. And finally, despite all the flaws in the modern game, it finally feels like supporting my team is getting back to being more like what it's supposed to be - fun, passionate and enjoyable. 

 

Anyways, I'm gannin to kip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Geordie2302

[Guest Biggsbond14]

6 hours ago, Geordie2302 said:

 

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 

 

 

 

 

 

Great article very impressed 

my thoughts are that they are a bunch of self centred knackers who can’t take criticism or some mates who started off with a worthy cause but ended up so out of their depth they have just lost it . 
im sure with a trust like that they have a obligation by law to show all incoming and outgoing monies to show true transparency? 
not suggesting they are skimming but accountability should be there for all to see .

The vote that only lasted for 2 days and btw the website was down for me but is now miraculously up and running but all votes finished ✅ 

wtf is going on as I’m very sceptical about this whole shambles and as you mentioned “ special project “ that no one has a scooby doo what it is but the 2 who run the trust .Even Steve Wraith ( I used to listen it can’t stand the cunt now) has said he doesn’t support them anymore not that he means anything but he did say he couldn’t understand what there overall goal endgame was .The fact that they have been so arsey with you doesn’t seem very professional in their capacity to come over as responsible adults dealing with fair questioning so it’s rabbits in the headlights or burying the heads in the sand who knows?

they probably chat in private wondering wtf have we done and for there sakes hope it’s all above board as they have a great chance to work with the club now and they come over as so amateur 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Biggsbond14

[Joey Linton]

The two day thing is a very short period of time for the vote, especially when they've opted not to even tweet about it over the last two days. 

[MarkyMark]

To me a supporter’s trust should be there to represent the wider support base to the club.  They shouldn’t be in bed with them, nor should they require an ‘endgame’, in Wraith’s words.  Too many of them are on a power trip, which terms like ‘endgame’ should flag up.  Ticket prices, away allocations, safe standing, disability access, community works - they should be the meat and drink of a supporters trust.  What do we get?  A handful of self-aggrandising knackers, using their fanzines and social media presence to weaponise hair-brained schemes to pump up their own egos.  Putting themselves and their pals on the board, or taking massive huffs if they’re not on it.

 

Again, the idea that they’re even running for these positions shows the out-of-control egos on show - don’t they have enough of a voice already?  Surely if you had a fanzine or a podcast or a significant social media presence, you’ve got all the ‘power’ (no laughing) you need?  Your voice is catered for.  The Romans managed to elect new leaders annually and they were running the Mediterranean - I’m sure a few thousand Geordies wanting to have a representative to tell them club that they should be asking for larger away allocations are capable of doing likewise.  Shorter terms and no running again for the same office once you’ve been elected would be a good start.  

[Geordie2302]

On 14/01/2022 at 19:02, Joey Linton said:

The two day thing is a very short period of time for the vote, especially when they've opted not to even tweet about it over the last two days. 

 

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. 

 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

3 minutes ago, Geordie2302 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Your voice as a supporter doesn’t count unless you’re a member, they (Alex) have made that clear several times.

[Geordie2302]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Your voice as a supporter doesn’t count unless you’re a member, they (Alex) have made that clear several times.

 

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. 

[Guest Biggsbond14]

2 minutes ago, Geordie2302 said:

 

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. 

Hope someone takes them to court for whatever reason they see fit as it reads like malpractice or very poor management of the trust 

[Joey Linton]

44 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Your voice as a supporter doesn’t count unless you’re a member, they (Alex) have made that clear several times.

Not just Alex to be fair. People have been told exactly the same when they've made suggestions on here. 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by Joey Linton

[Geordie2302]

22 hours ago, Biggsbond14 said:

Hope someone takes them to court for whatever reason they see fit as it reads like malpractice or very poor management of the trust 

that's genuinely what I set out to try and avoid but we are where we are! 

22 hours ago, Joey Linton said:

Not just Alex to be fair. People have been told exactly the same when they've made suggestions on here. 

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.  

[SAK]

NUST Member Vote Result: 1892 Pledge Scheme 

Voting closed for Members on the vote regarding the future of the 1892 Pledge Scheme on Friday 14th January at 17.00.

The Trust can reveal that Members voted resoundingly to agree with the Board and Gaurdian's decision to end the Scheme with 87% of eligible votes cast in favour of ending the Scheme.

Members have endorsed the decisions of both the 1892 Pledge Guardians and Trust Board to end the Scheme. As of 21.00 on 16th January 2022 all active subscriptions were cancelled for the Pledge Scheme and the Trust no longer collects money for the Scheme.

The Trust Board working together with the Pledge Guardians will begin the process in the coming weeks and months to distribute the money raised to charities based in the North East of England.  The process will be thorough to ensure all money goes to those in need and that it is donated with a clear purpose in mind.  Members will be consulted along the way and encouraged to help shape the process of charity selection and we will share more details of how this will take place in due course.

The Trust Board would like to thank Members for their support and their passion for the 1892 Pledge Scheme.  We tried to do something unique for the benefit of Newcastle United and we have raised a huge sum between us that will benefit this part of the world and that means so much to us.

Thank you. We can’t wait to get to work and get your money into our community with your help and your approval.

[Guest Biggsbond14]

8 hours ago, SAK said:

NUST Member Vote Result: 1892 Pledge Scheme 

Voting closed for Members on the vote regarding the future of the 1892 Pledge Scheme on Friday 14th January at 17.00.

The Trust can reveal that Members voted resoundingly to agree with the Board and Gaurdian's decision to end the Scheme with 87% of eligible votes cast in favour of ending the Scheme.

Members have endorsed the decisions of both the 1892 Pledge Guardians and Trust Board to end the Scheme. As of 21.00 on 16th January 2022 all active subscriptions were cancelled for the Pledge Scheme and the Trust no longer collects money for the Scheme.

The Trust Board working together with the Pledge Guardians will begin the process in the coming weeks and months to distribute the money raised to charities based in the North East of England.  The process will be thorough to ensure all money goes to those in need and that it is donated with a clear purpose in mind.  Members will be consulted along the way and encouraged to help shape the process of charity selection and we will share more details of how this will take place in due course.

The Trust Board would like to thank Members for their support and their passion for the 1892 Pledge Scheme.  We tried to do something unique for the benefit of Newcastle United and we have raised a huge sum between us that will benefit this part of the world and that means so much to us.

Thank you. We can’t wait to get to work and get your money into our community with your help and your approval.

I couldn’t cast my vote on the site as it was unreachable so it would be interesting to know if anyone else had a issue logging in , 87% vote of members and I wonder how many members there are.

[SAK]

@biggsbond14

No problem for me when I voted. Must be a fair few members, posters like Gregg or Heron would know as I believe they are/were involved with the Trust.

 

[Joey Linton]

5 hours ago, Biggsbond14 said:

I couldn’t cast my vote on the site as it was unreachable so it would be interesting to know if anyone else had a issue logging in , 87% vote of members and I wonder how many members there are.

87% of those who voted were in favour of winding it up i believe, rather than 87% of all members voted. 

 

Would be interested to see the actual numbers though, given how short the voting window was. 

[Geordie2302]

6 hours ago, Biggsbond14 said:

I couldn’t cast my vote on the site as it was unreachable so it would be interesting to know if anyone else had a issue logging in , 87% vote of members and I wonder how many members there are.

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