Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[Guest HTT II]

If Hearts’ fans can raise over 10m for their club, surely the fanbase of NUFC can do similar? Here’s hoping!

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

A good idea in principle - there should be a degree of fan ownership with every club.

However it feels to me that it’s just building up to a substantial charitable donation further down the line (when?)

They’ll never raise enough to buy the club outright unless we’ve tumbled down the leagues and can be bought for peanuts. There’s not a chance on earth Ashley would consider relinquishing even a tiny stake.

If the club stays afloat and is sold for serious money, I also can’t see any new owner happily letting the Trust have a small share of the ownership. It allows whoever is at the top to be held to account. If you’re spending megabucks, surely you want minimal interference?

That’s obviously just my own take on the sad state of football generally.

[samptime29]

Feeling fairly zesty after my lunch and a post lunch wank: so I'm in. 

[Guest HTT II]

5 minutes ago, WarrenBartonCentrePartin said:

A good idea in principle - there should be a degree of fan ownership with every club.

However it feels to me that it’s just building up to a substantial charitable donation further down the line (when?)

They’ll never raise enough to buy the club outright unless we’ve tumbled down the leagues and can be bought for peanuts. There’s not a chance on earth Ashley would consider relinquishing even a tiny stake.

If the club stays afloat and is sold for serious money, I also can’t see any new owner happily letting the Trust have a small share of the ownership. It allows whoever is at the top to be held to account. If you’re spending megabucks, surely you want minimal interference?

That’s obviously just my own take on the sad state of football generally.

I think any genuine owner with good intentions would be happy to work closely with its support base and effectively its customers, NUST and fans are not out to dictate to owners/directors, but to be United in ensuring that our club (and theirs) is successful and that can’t happen without fan involvement and community integration. Just look at the academy, it’s a shambles. 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by HTT II

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I can see a good owner wanting the fans in, excellent PR and an easy way to get their views.

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I can see a good owner wanting the fans in, excellent PR and an easy way to get their views.

The last time the club truly involved the fans was under SJH and KK and look at the results. The last manager to truly involve the fans in terms of communications and PR was Rafa and look at the unanimous support for the team and manager even following a relegation and some not so good results and performances, look at the effect of Wor Flags. Sadly we’ve had an owner for the last 14 years that has not only not involved fans but deliberately and maliciously antagonised, divided and frankly made unwelcome at our own club other than for our money. 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by HTT II

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

There's a difference in engaging and wanting to work alongside them to actively allowing them to own a small percentage of the club.

[Ben]

3 minutes ago, WarrenBartonCentrePartin said:

There's a difference in engaging and wanting to work alongside them to actively allowing them to own a small percentage of the club.

Are you're a Guardian 

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

1 minute ago, Ben said:

Are you're a Guardian 

wat

[Guest neesy111]

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

Are you're a Guardian 

Are you*

[AyeDubbleYoo]

6 minutes ago, WarrenBartonCentrePartin said:

There's a difference in engaging and wanting to work alongside them to actively allowing them to own a small percentage of the club.

Sure, that would be for a buyer to decide, would depend on the people. But say I can get £10m towards my bid, good PR and all I have to do is listen to what the fan representatives tell me, it doesn't seem such a bad idea.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Ben]

2 minutes ago, neesy111 said:

Are you*

I'm not

[Guest HTT II]

7 minutes ago, WarrenBartonCentrePartin said:

There's a difference in engaging and wanting to work alongside them to actively allowing them to own a small percentage of the club.

And there is also a difference in what a stakeholder can do or not do or influence or not based on their stake-hold, which I’d assume would be set out from the start under any terms and conditions anyway.

 

I sold a stake in my company years ago and that individual gradually upped his stake and it’s been mutually beneficial for both and indeed the company. I imagine any professional person or persons would be perfectly able and capable of working with say NUST accordingly and NUST likewise, 1% or above regardless.

[InspectorCoarse]

12 minutes ago, HTT II said:

The last time the club truly involved the fans was under SJH and KK and look at the results. The last manager to truly involve the fans in terms of communications and PR was Rafa and look at the unanimous support for the team and manager even following a relegation and some not so good results and performances, look at the effect of Wor Flags. Sadly we’ve had an owner for the last 14 years that has not only not involved fans but deliberately and maliciously antagonised, divided and frankly made unwelcome at our own club other than for our money. 

The fans have never been truly involved under any administration

[Guest HTT II]

1 minute ago, InspectorCoarse said:

The fans have never been truly involved under any administration

Not at board level yes, but in lots of other ways under previous owners/management and to great effect. I can see it becoming law in the near future that fan representation will be needed at board level at every club, I hope so anyway. 

[Joey Linton]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/newcastle-fans-pledge-50million-buy-3366385

 

Raised £50m in pledges last time so this should be easy. 

[Yorkie]

3 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/newcastle-fans-pledge-50million-buy-3366385

 

Raised £50m in pledges last time so this should be easy. 

Have no recollection of this. What went wrong? 

[J7]

39 minutes ago, Foluwashola said:

Much easier to be negative than bother your arse to do anything yourself. 

Think its a cracking idea, even if it comes to nowt. Will be getting involved. 

When you say 'bother your arse do anything yourself', that doesn't really mean much. I think we all want to see Ashley gone and new owners, but this isn't seeking to achieve that. This is about a degree of fan ownership, or fans having a say on the board. Personally, I don't agree that it's desirable so for me I have no interest in ever doing anything to achieve that aim. It would be similar if one of my neighbours wanted to paint my block of flats red and I said I didn't want to be involved and didn't like it. The argument back can't be 'easier to be negative than bother your arse to do anything yourself'. Well, I don't want to do anything as I don't agree with the aim.

I've seen this kind of idea play out at another club (granted far smaller) over 15-20 years. When a group of well meaning people got together to set up a Trust so that fans could have a say in the club. Attracted hundreds of members paying Direct Debits of £2+ each a month. The original group and one person dominated and eventually caused all sorts of problems and conflict over the years, speaking on 'behalf of members' and of course, it's all democratic because they hold elections. The problem is, the leaders or the board of the trust end up with their view. If people don't agree, they leave. They don't try and change things internally as it's not worth the effort. Easier to criticise from the outside as opposed to voicing discontent on the inside while paying for the privilege. In the example I'm talking about it ended up with the original group who were well meaning individuals constantly going into battle with the club board who had as much, if not more support from fans than they did. They used the 'we have hundreds of members' and 'democratic elections' argument, but only a handful ever went to their AGM. The membership was basically a group of people who agreed with the Trust board, a section who we're barely interested and a huge section of people who simply set up a Direct Debit at the start as they had an affinity with the club and never thought about it again. Good for fundraising, not as representation. It certainly wasn't representative of the support. 

Nothing against the guys in the Trust and they've done a lot of good things. Alex is a great on the podcasts and when on the radio. Nothing against the individuals, but I couldn't back this idea.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Some of the posts from the Facebook Groups brigade on here are embarrassing as fuck. 

[Yorkie]

2 hours ago, Minhosa said:

Can someone do a poll on this? I'd be interested in something like;

- Love this idea - will donate

- Like it - can't donate

- Like it - won't donate

- Neither for/against

- Don't like and won't donate

 

Or similar from someone with the time to think it through.

Added just a basic poll.

[InspectorCoarse]

31 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Not at board level yes, but in lots of other ways under previous owners/management and to great effect. I can see it becoming law in the near future that fan representation will be needed at board level at every club, I hope so anyway. 

What other ways did they have involvement ?

[Guest HTT II]

16 minutes ago, InspectorCoarse said:

What other ways did they have involvement ?

Wor flags, KK inviting fans to the training ground, fans being involved in the design of kits and the Black & White magazine, open training days etc.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by HTT II

[InspectorCoarse]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

Wor flags, KK inviting fans to the training ground, fans being involved in the design of kits and the Black & White magazine, open training days etc.

So no real involvement in the running of the club just good pr ...

and John Halls " a seat for every pocket " bollocks ? 

or when fans were moved against their will to other parts of the ground ? 

Aye , reet ...

[Minhosa]

43 minutes ago, JJ7 said:

When you say 'bother your arse do anything yourself', that doesn't really mean much. I think we all want to see Ashley gone and new owners, but this isn't seeking to achieve that. This is about a degree of fan ownership, or fans having a say on the board. Personally, I don't agree that it's desirable so for me I have no interest in ever doing anything to achieve that aim. It would be similar if one of my neighbours wanted to paint my block of flats red and I said I didn't want to be involved and didn't like it. The argument back can't be 'easier to be negative than bother your arse to do anything yourself'. Well, I don't want to do anything as I don't agree with the aim.

I've seen this kind of idea play out at another club (granted far smaller) over 15-20 years. When a group of well meaning people got together to set up a Trust so that fans could have a say in the club. Attracted hundreds of members paying Direct Debits of £2+ each a month. The original group and one person dominated and eventually caused all sorts of problems and conflict over the years, speaking on 'behalf of members' and of course, it's all democratic because they hold elections. The problem is, the leaders or the board of the trust end up with their view. If people don't agree, they leave. They don't try and change things internally as it's not worth the effort. Easier to criticise from the outside as opposed to voicing discontent on the inside while paying for the privilege. In the example I'm talking about it ended up with the original group who were well meaning individuals constantly going into battle with the club board who had as much, if not more support from fans than they did. They used the 'we have hundreds of members' and 'democratic elections' argument, but only a handful ever went to their AGM. The membership was basically a group of people who agreed with the Trust board, a section who we're barely interested and a huge section of people who simply set up a Direct Debit at the start as they had an affinity with the club and never thought about it again. Good for fundraising, not as representation. It certainly wasn't representative of the support. 

Nothing against the guys in the Trust and they've done a lot of good things. Alex is a great on the podcasts and when on the radio. Nothing against the individuals, but I couldn't back this idea.

Excellent post this.

For me, if you remove Ashley then you remove the biggest problem. That's what any NUFC group should be focused on.

Imagine a world where someone like Pallotta buys the club, sells the 1% to the Trust and then proves to be an awful owner.

What's the chances a genuine owner with good intentions THEN chooses to buy NUFC (with a vocal fans group allowed a seat on the Board) off him or buys a club without it?

Commercially, I'd opt for the club without it because;

a) The good 'PR uplift' has been lost.

b) I'd not want to have forced engagement and would prefer to do it on my terms and not based upon those of my shonky predecessor.

c) If I throw a ton of cash at the club and increase it's value, I'll only realise 99% of it.

As for NUFC's value tumbling should we go down and then possibly go down again, then yes, we'd be worth much less but we'd also be far more likely to get a shithouse owner.

IMHO, they should have engaged in a partnership with the Staveley consortium and negotiated a 1% ownership BUT ONLY because of the additional pressure this would apply to the PL because of the recognition by the Saudi's of the supporters role.

I can see a use for it in those circumstances, otherwise, I don't really get it.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Minhosa

[Guest HTT II]

6 minutes ago, InspectorCoarse said:

So no real involvement in the running of the club just good pr ...

and John Halls " a seat for every pocket " bollocks ? 

or when fans were moved against their will to other parts of the ground ? 

Aye , reet ...

Still involvement and I did say not directly at board level, seems your being pedantic for well...