Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[Joey Linton]

6 minutes ago, FCB said:

Just talked to a representative.  They said something about the meetings and all that to find the right charity slowly grinding to an end.

Four months? 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Four months? 

 

Haven’t you heard? Greg’s got a new lass. Impossible to sort shite like this between work and a lass.

He’s a top bloke though. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Fantail Breeze

[Joey Linton]

13 minutes ago, FCB said:

Just talked to a representative.  They said something about the meetings and all that to find the right charity slowly grinding to an end.

In all seriousness I think you pick your charity or charities and donate. Pick three, pick five, pick ten, - they'll all be worthy causes. Talk of finding the 'right' ones is frankly awful. And you certainly don't take four months to do it. 

[FCB]

16 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Four months? 

Lee Forster ⚫️⚪️⚫️⚪️ on Twitter: "@CoreOfNufc @ToonUnited2 @nufctrust Meetings with charities and the pledge Guardians have to be set up, and take place to allow them to put forward their plans and representations to secure funds. That process has been going on for a few weeks / months, and is now drawing to a close. Updates will follow soon." / Twitter

Edit: Please. Someone. Teach me how to embed Twitter links. This is torture.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by FCB

[Joey Linton]

3 minutes ago, FCB said:

Lee Forster ⚫️⚪️⚫️⚪️ on Twitter: "@CoreOfNufc @ToonUnited2 @nufctrust Meetings with charities and the pledge Guardians have to be set up, and take place to allow them to put forward their plans and representations to secure funds. That process has been going on for a few weeks / months, and is now drawing to a close. Updates will follow soon." / Twitter

Edit: Please. Someone. Teach me how to embed Twitter links. This is torture.

 

 

 

Reads like a competitive tender invitation ffs. Awful. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Joey Linton

[Fantail Breeze]

Are they seriously making charities “put forward” a case for the funds? Aye, let’s ask some charities to beg for cash.

 

Everything Hurst does is like a little power trip. “Oh look at me deciding between you all” sort of thing.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Fantail Breeze

[jack j]

Hes got a similar posh accent to that caulkin has that Hurst. Defo  a pair of torys

[christ]

If they’d dished the cash out people on here still would’ve complained.

[ToonTom]

Don't know where else to post this so have gone for the thread with the most recent post. We have just lost our mantle of least successful FA Cup Finalists in a set period: 1905-1911 saw us win one and lose four FA Cup Finals out of seven - this evening, Chelsea topped it at last by winning one and losing four finals out of the last six.

 

Thought it was something worth noting ...

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by ToonTom

[Yorkie]

Doing everything they can to ensure the money isn't squandered/goes as far as it possibly can seems inherently responsible to me.

 

I've little to no time for Alex Hurst and feel dubious about how the Trust operates, but probably not every single thing they do is some moustache-twirling masterplan cooked up by Hurst to make him feel more important. A lot of stuff is, clearly. But this just sounds like they're doing what they can to ensure people's donations are going as far as they can. Is there a rush?

 

You'd hope there might be some independent assistance, mind you. I don't know if anyone on the Trust board is actually qualified to undertake such a process and there's plenty of professionals out there in this field who could help.  

[Shadow Puppets]

Without wanting to dig up the past, I haven’t really followed developments with the trust… what exactly has Hurst done to annoy people?

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Doing everything they can to ensure the money isn't squandered/goes as far as it possibly can seems inherently responsible to me.

 

I've little to no time for Alex Hurst and feel dubious about how the Trust operates, but probably not every single thing they do is some moustache-twirling masterplan cooked up by Hurst to make him feel more important. A lot of stuff is, clearly. But this just sounds like they're doing what they can to ensure people's donations are going as far as they can. Is there a rush?

 

You'd hope there might be some independent assistance, mind you. I don't know if anyone on the Trust board is actually qualified to undertake such a process and there's plenty of professionals out there in this field who could help.  

 

Do charities have a long history of squandering donations?

[Joey Linton]

6 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Doing everything they can to ensure the money isn't squandered/goes as far as it possibly can seems inherently responsible to me.

 

I've little to no time for Alex Hurst and feel dubious about how the Trust operates, but probably not every single thing they do is some moustache-twirling masterplan cooked up by Hurst to make him feel more important. A lot of stuff is, clearly. But this just sounds like they're doing what they can to ensure people's donations are going as far as they can. Is there a rush?

 

You'd hope there might be some independent assistance, mind you. I don't know if anyone on the Trust board is actually qualified to undertake such a process and there's plenty of professionals out there in this field who could help.  

Agree on the Hurst stuff, for a start he isn't in charge. That seems to be forgotten constantly. 

 

On the rest of it though, 4 months is way too long, especially without any formal update. It's being given to charities ffs. How much scrutiny do they need to be under?

[christ]

4 months isn’t particularly long like. It’s entirely reasonable to do due diligence when you’re donating other people’s money that was given to you in completely different circumstances for a different purpose. 

[Yorkie]

8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Do charities have a long history of squandering donations?

 

I think so, tbh, yeah. Not necessarily in the sense that money just gets pissed away, but squandered in the sense that more could've been done. I used to administer community grants in a previous job role and ensuring groups could actually spend the money/deliver their projects was basically the most important part of the job. 

 

Hypothetically they could give every charity in the region a grand; would that be the most appropriate approach? Likewise they could give it all to (say) the Food Bank. Again, is that the best way to do it? Who's to say? Those are two extremes, just for the purpose of making the point that I don't think it's as straightforward as Greg and Alex standing there and making it rain,  and all good, everybody wins. 

 

Taking care, doing due diligence and inviting people to come forward to explain their wants, needs and their strategy - before making as informed a judgement as possible - sounds like a totally sensible way of distributing money to me, if that is indeed what is happening (obviously the comms is total wank so who knows). Again I would caveat that by saying I'd hope there was some contribution from actual professionals. 

[Newintoon]

Regarding the pot idea, say there was 10,000 tickets are they suggesting 2500 tickets for each pot?

[TheBrownBottle]

I’d bet my house on Hurst using the term ‘undeserving poor’ unironically

 

Perhaps if the charities were charged for being on the tender list so that bad charities who’d just sell the money are discouraged that would be a good idea?

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by TheBrownBottle

[Fantail Breeze]

6 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I think so, tbh, yeah. Not necessarily in the sense that money just gets pissed away, but squandered in the sense that more could've been done. I used to administer community grants in a previous job role and ensuring groups could actually spend the money/deliver their projects was basically the most important part of the job. 

 

Hypothetically they could give every charity in the region a grand; would that be the most appropriate approach? Likewise they could give it all to (say) the Food Bank. Again, is that the best way to do it? Who's to say? Those are two extremes, just for the purpose of making the point that I don't think it's as straightforward as Greg and Alex standing there and making it rain,  and all good, everybody wins. 

 

Taking care, doing due diligence and inviting people to come forward to explain their wants, needs and their strategy - before making as informed a judgement as possible - sounds like a totally sensible way of distributing money to me, if that is indeed what is happening (obviously the comms is total wank so who knows). Again I would caveat that by saying I'd hope there was some contribution from actual professionals. 

 

Administering community grants is totally different from making a donation to a registered charity.

 

They could’ve done something totally unusual and consulted with their members (you know, the people who are actually important in the Trust) and asked for suggestions.

 

Those suggestions could be, as you say, a small % to hundreds of charities or big donations to two or three.

 

Equally there could’ve been a list of suggested charities with a vote and the charities getting a % of the pot based on their votes.

 

There are so many ways of doing it, loads of them could have been collaborative.

 

I’ll leave it again. So many missed opportunities to get something/anything done with this Trust are absolutely infuriating though.

[Yorkie]

3 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Administering community grants is totally different from making a donation to a registered charity.

 

They could’ve done something totally unusual and consulted with their members (you know, the people who are actually important in the Trust) and asked for suggestions.

 

Those suggestions could be, as you say, a small % to hundreds of charities or big donations to two or three.

 

Equally there could’ve been a list of suggested charities with a vote and the charities getting a % of the pot based on their votes.

 

There are so many ways of doing it, loads of them could have been collaborative.

 

I’ll leave it again. So many missed opportunities to get something/anything done with this Trust are absolutely infuriating though.

 

I think a lot of the same principles apply. If you've got money to give out you have a responsibility to ensure it gets used as well as it can. 

 

Don't disagree that there could've been more comms/collaboration/member involvement. 

[christ]

4 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Administering community grants is totally different from making a donation to a registered charity.

 

They could’ve done something totally unusual and consulted with their members (you know, the people who are actually important in the Trust) and asked for suggestions.

 

Those suggestions could be, as you say, a small % to hundreds of charities or big donations to two or three.

 

Equally there could’ve been a list of suggested charities with a vote and the charities getting a % of the pot based on their votes.

 

There are so many ways of doing it, loads of them could have been collaborative.

 

I’ll leave it again. So many missed opportunities to get something/anything done with this Trust are absolutely infuriating though.

Sorry, but you’re talking complete bollocks. Collaboration and consultation is a great idea but entirely inappropriate in this instance.
 

You could end up with the entire pot spread across dozens of different charities in quantities that are too small to make a difference in most cases, alternatively you could end up with a massive lump sum going to an organisation that isn’t set up to deal with that influx of money. 

[Fantail Breeze]

9 minutes ago, christ said:

Sorry, but you’re talking complete bollocks. Collaboration and consultation is a great idea but entirely inappropriate in this instance.
 

You could end up with the entire pot spread across dozens of different charities in quantities that are too small to make a difference in most cases, alternatively you could end up with a massive lump sum going to an organisation that isn’t set up to deal with that influx of money. 

 

No, I think you’ll find it’s you who is talking ‘complete bollocks’.

 

As I said in my original post, which you seem to have been a bit to thick to comprehend, members could put suggestions forward.

 

None of the hypothetical scenarios I put forward in my post would result in the suggestions you’ve made in yours.

 

Inappropriate suggestions could of course be put to one side. I’d also argue your point that any charity donation would be ‘too small to make a difference’. Any donation to any charity makes a difference… that’s the whole point.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Fantail Breeze

[christ]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

 

No, I think you’ll find it’s you who is talking ‘complete bollocks’.

 

As I said in my original post, which you seem to have been a bit to thick to comprehend, members could put suggestions forward.

 

None of the hypothetical scenarios I put forward in my post would result in the  suggestions you’ve made in yours.

 

Inappropriate suggestions could of course be put to one side. I’d also argue your point that any charity donation would be ‘too small to make a difference’. Any donation to any charity makes a difference - that’s the whole point.

 

 

 

Oh aye, this thread is proof positive that no one would kick off if the Trust started striking off their suggested charities 

 

Each charity is different. Different projects, different scale, different charitable spend. You could conceivably spread this money around in the wrong places or provide it to the wrong organisations - best of intentions - and make much less of an impact than if some thought was put into where it was sent. That’s why the Trust’s approach is better than what you’ve outlined.

[rickyprickles]

1 hour ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Without wanting to dig up the past, I haven’t really followed developments with the trust… what exactly has Hurst done to annoy people?

I’m not 100% but I think it’s mostly related to him being a fat tory knacker. 

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

9 hours ago, geordie_b said:

NUSTs proposal to club for the distribution of Season Tickets

 

https://nufctrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Season-Tickets.pdf

 

Depending on the amount in each pot i think its a pretty sensible solution to a very difficult situation

 

Got to the second par and saw the line saying "this has lead".

 

If you want to represent the fanbase, learn to fucking spell.

[Disco]

I think it’s been awfully managed as a whole and don’t trust anyone involved but getting charities/community projects to apply for set funds from a trust is absolutely standard practise.
 

CBA to look but I think I suggested it ages ago. As I think I also said they could split the funds between applications for specific projects or additions to what they’re doing already and then just give x % to the food bank or whoever too as their work is obvious and isn’t going to change.

 

Suggesting charges for anything that doesn’t need to have charges attached is absolutely tone deaf and to be expected though.