Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[Rich]

14 hours ago, lovejoy said:

Alex is a sound lad imo, who has done a great job raising the £. Not sure why he gets so much stick on here tbh.

 

£180,000 in how long? That's not impressive.

[Joey Linton]

44 minutes ago, Rich said:

 

£180,000 in how long? That's not impressive.

Was £40k after 48 hours too which Greg said on here was in the majority of cases monthly pledges. That was the start of April, some 8 months ago. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Joey Linton

[Shearergol]

17 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Was £40k after 48 hours too which Greg said on here was in the majority of cases monthly pledges. That was the start of April, some 8 months ago. 

 

 

 

Has @Greg left this forum btw? Thought was going to explain the circumstances in which Alex got his seat back? Did I miss that?

[Yorkie]

4 hours ago, Rich said:

 

£180,000 in how long? That's not impressive.

 

I'm no lover of the Trust and certainly not of Alex Hurst, but to go from nowt to £180,000 - during a pandemic too - is a pretty solid achievement, like. But they said they would review the project at intervals, and if the monthly pledges are already plummeting then there's no shame in calling it quits even at this early stage, and make the donation to local charities. Or keep it going but change the objective.

 

I'm dubious about how the Trust operates at times but I think the pledge was a pretty good effort. 

[Pixelphish]

3 hours ago, Shearergol said:

Has @Greg left this forum btw? Thought was going to explain the circumstances in which Alex got his seat back? Did I miss that?

 

Legend says he's still at work.

[Fantail Breeze]

7 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I'm no lover of the Trust and certainly not of Alex Hurst, but to go from nowt to £180,000 - during a pandemic too - is a pretty solid achievement, like. But they said they would review the project at intervals, and if the monthly pledges are already plummeting then there's no shame in calling it quits even at this early stage, and make the donation to local charities. Or keep it going but change the objective.

 

I'm dubious about how the Trust operates at times but I think the pledge was a pretty good effort. 

 

It was a good charity fundraiser, it’s actual purpose was redundant from day one and never achievable.

[Joey Linton]

22 minutes ago, Pixelphish said:

 

Legend says he's still at work.

Is he a Junior Doctor? 

[Rich]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

 

I'm no lover of the Trust and certainly not of Alex Hurst, but to go from nowt to £180,000 - during a pandemic too - is a pretty solid achievement, like. But they said they would review the project at intervals, and if the monthly pledges are already plummeting then there's no shame in calling it quits even at this early stage, and make the donation to local charities. Or keep it going but change the objective.

 

I'm dubious about how the Trust operates at times but I think the pledge was a pretty good effort. 

 

Nah, given the size of the captive audience and the depth of feeling against Ashley's ownership/general desperation amongst a decent chunk of the fanbase to do something to have an impact it's not a big amount. Hearts was the inspiration, apparently, and they were doing £1.5M a year at the beginning of the pandemic with an aim to get that to £2M.

 

Hearts have raised £12.6M in total in 11 years and 1 month, it seems. At the rate the Trust was going at, we'd be looking at £3.6M in total in that timeframe (and it had already slowed significantly before the takeover). That's between 1/3 and 1/4 of what Hearts have managed. Awful measurement, but Hearts has 98.7K followers on Twitter, NUFC has 1.9M. Slightly more relevant, they average about 17,000 per home game, a third of what we do. The scope and scale of the two clubs is night and day, even pre-takeover.

 

It just wasn't thought out, executed, or communicated well enough and the people involved clearly weren't deemed to be trustworthy enough by your average match-going fan (as well as the likes of me, eventually). I pledged for a good few months to feel like I was doing the something I mentioned above, but lost faith fairly quickly.

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Rich said:

 

Nah, given the size of the captive audience and the depth of feeling against Ashley's ownership/general desperation amongst a decent chunk of the fanbase to do something to have an impact it's not a big amount. Hearts was the inspiration, apparently, and they were doing £1.5M a year at the beginning of the pandemic with an aim to get that to £2M.

 

Hearts have raised £12.6M in total in 11 years and 1 month, it seems. At the rate the Trust was going at, we'd be looking at £3.6M in total in that timeframe (and it had already slowed significantly before the takeover). That's between 1/3 and 1/4 of what Hearts have managed. Awful measurement, but Hearts has 98.7K followers on Twitter, NUFC has 1.9M. Slightly more relevant, they average about 17,000 per home game, a third of what we do. The scope and scale of the two clubs is night and day, even pre-takeover.

 

It just wasn't thought out, executed, or communicated well enough and the people involved clearly weren't deemed to be trustworthy enough by your average match-going fan (and the likes of me). I pledged for a good few months to feel like I was doing the something I mentioned above, but lost faith fairly quickly.

 

Pre-takeover it looked (based on the amount the total went up each month) like the monthly pledges were down to about £15k-£20k. 

 

Pumping money into Hearts is achievable because of the value of the club. That’s why “MyFootballClub” purchased a National League club, when that was a thing.

 

That quickly fell flat on it’s arse too.

 

Considering Alex had apparently been working on the pledge for 2-3 years, it’s embarrassing they couldn’t even provide a basic plan of what would happen next.

 

But then again, as above, they can’t even stick to their word and answer credible questions from supporters.

 

Their actions aren’t too dissimilar to what they criticised Ashley for. A lack of communication and engagement and making decisions to solely benefit themselves.

Fame/money does some terrible things to people. 

[Yorkie]

10 minutes ago, Rich said:

 

Nah, given the size of the captive audience and the depth of feeling against Ashley's ownership/general desperation amongst a decent chunk of the fanbase to do something to have an impact it's not a big amount. Hearts was the inspiration, apparently, and they were doing £1.5M a year at the beginning of the pandemic with an aim to get that to £2M.

 

Hearts have raised £12.6M in total in 11 years and 1 month, it seems. At the rate the Trust was going at, we'd be looking at £3.6M in total in that timeframe (and it had already slowed significantly before the takeover). That's between 1/3 and 1/4 of what Hearts have managed. Awful measurement, but Hearts has 98.7K followers on Twitter, NUFC has 1.9M. Slightly more relevant, they average about 17,000 per home game, a third of what we do. The scope and scale of the two clubs is night and day, even pre-takeover.

 

It just wasn't thought out, executed, or communicated well enough and the people involved clearly weren't deemed to be trustworthy enough by your average match-going fan (as well as the likes of me, eventually). I pledged for a good few months to feel like I was doing the something I mentioned above, but lost faith fairly quickly.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. Playing Devil's Advocate now, you could argue that it said as much about how ambivalent/accepting of mediocrity the fanbase had become. But agree that it wasn't really pushed that much, beyond launch day, which makes you wonder how much of a commitment it really was. Still, £180k going to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have done, not bad. 

[Rich]

4 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Fair enough. Playing Devil's Advocate now, you could argue that it said as much about how ambivalent/accepting of mediocrity the fanbase had become. But agree that it wasn't really pushed that much, beyond launch day, which makes you wonder how much of a commitment it really was. Still, £180k going to charitable causes that otherwise wouldn't have done, not bad. 

 

Aye, no issues with the charitable donation element. It should've been 5-10x the size, though.

[Joey Linton]

35 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Their actions aren’t too dissimilar to what they criticised Ashley for. A lack of communication and engagement and making decisions to solely benefit themselves.

With people on here having been willing to play the role of Rio Ferdinand, Martin Samuel and Simon Jordan and shoot down any criticism just because they know the people involved.

[Whitley mag]

Long thread on the trust not just folk on here who seem to have an issue.

 

 

[Guest neesy111]

On 23/11/2021 at 18:15, Rich said:

 

Aye, no issues with the charitable donation element. It should've been 5-10x the size, though.

 

Aye, for a fanbase the size of ours and over a number of months of people putting monthly donations that's a small amount.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

16 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Long thread on the trust not just folk on here who seem to have an issue.

 

 

 

Must admit, I'm with the people in the replies asking what the fuck he's going on about

[wormy]

Pure guesswork here but I think a somewhat condensed version of this mess is:

 

- The Trust is avoiding an AGM which is mandatory under the rules that govern supporters trusts

- They also refuse to release financial particulars that again, are required under the rules that govern supporters trusts

- He thinks they were editing things on the website, as well as retrospectively 'reviewing' processes and procedures related to what he deemed as shady stuff, in the middle of his dispute, to try and cover their tracks

- Treated his dispute as a complaint to alter how they would need to handle it

- Thinks they broke board member vote rules by not have any form of postal vote available for people who may not have registered an email address with the Trust, and hustings singled out a particular candidate for a question without allowing others a chance to answer or respond. 

 

... Does that sound about right? 

 

Not backing up any of his claims as I've no clue, and am not even a member anymore to know what this members update with 'fibs' is. Just trying to make sense of that absolute mess of a Twitter thread is all.

 

May seem an overreaction (as someone in the replies implied) but as a group that are looking to be a major representative of our fans with the new ownership they should sure as shit be raked over the coals if stuff like this is correct.

 

Either way, I'll keep my popcorn within reaching distance. 

[Heron]

5 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

Long thread on the trust not just folk on here who seem to have an issue.

 

 

This individual DM'd me on Twitter, seemingly intent on me dishing dirt on why I left the Trust.

 

As always is the case, there is a Black side and a white side to this debate but the reality is somewhere in the merky grey middle ground.

 

There are some accuracies in what's being said, but there's seemingly alterior motives at play too. I find it a bit peculiar going to such lengths to drag volunteers through the dirt, but similarly I agree that if you want to lead such an organisation then you need to be thorough and accountable.

 

I could spill out all my reasons and versions of events, ones which wouldn't paint this guy tweeting in a good light, wouldn't paint the trust in a good light and to some wouldn't paint me in a good light. What I don't get is that, in a time when we require unity and a siege mentality with all but results going right for us, why would anyone want to be so disruptive? We're all in it for NUFC, or so I always naively thought, until I was about 22 (10 years ago).

 

I will say this though, in this day and age every club should have a trust and a trust that is representative of its fans not just it's membership. Clubs belong to their communities.

[Heron]

3 hours ago, wormy said:

Pure guesswork here but I think a somewhat condensed version of this mess is:

 

- The Trust is avoiding an AGM which is mandatory under the rules that govern supporters trusts

- They also refuse to release financial particulars that again, are required under the rules that govern supporters trusts

- He thinks they were editing things on the website, as well as retrospectively 'reviewing' processes and procedures related to what he deemed as shady stuff, in the middle of his dispute, to try and cover their tracks

- Treated his dispute as a complaint to alter how they would need to handle it

- Thinks they broke board member vote rules by not have any form of postal vote available for people who may not have registered an email address with the Trust, and hustings singled out a particular candidate for a question without allowing others a chance to answer or respond. 

 

... Does that sound about right? 

 

Not backing up any of his claims as I've no clue, and am not even a member anymore to know what this members update with 'fibs' is. Just trying to make sense of that absolute mess of a Twitter thread is all.

 

May seem an overreaction (as someone in the replies implied) but as a group that are looking to be a major representative of our fans with the new ownership they should sure as shit be raked over the coals if stuff like this is correct.

 

Either way, I'll keep my popcorn within reaching distance. 

Accurate summary.

 

He's going about things the wrong way here though, and so are the trust. Who'd have thought, 'fan engagement' holds the key... 

 

Wish someone suggested that...

 

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Heron

[xLiaaamx]

Alex Hurst with final say over things like Stadium name and Club Badge. It's coming. 

[NE27]

6 hours ago, xLiaaamx said:

Alex Hurst with final say over things like Stadium name and Club Badge. It's coming. 

 

The Gravy Bowl, and the seahorses on the logo replaced with grimace and the hamburglar. It's coming.

[AJ9]

In any trust or community organisation, strong governance is the most important thing. As Heron has said, people may have differing views on the personalities, but part of the point of governance is to ensure that doesn’t hijack the overall aims and structure of the organisation. So I kind of agree with that guy’s point, whether he’s an arsehole or not.

[Guest HTT II]

21 minutes ago, alijmitchell said:

In any trust or community organisation, strong governance is the most important thing. As Heron has said, people may have differing views on the personalities, but part of the point of governance is to ensure that doesn’t hijack the overall aims and structure of the organisation. So I kind of agree with that guy’s point, whether he’s an arsehole or not.

Heron’s no arsehole man 

[Hhtoon]

Guy needs to get a bit of a grip. Some admittedly slightly shoddy governance but it's a supporters group full of volunteers. He's obviously got an axe to grind but might as well just front it up rather than rooting through the regs picking on whatever he can for 4 months.

 

Personally I think Hurst is self serving who has waltzed back in as he knows the club is going places and he wants to ride it's coat tails for his own profile. 

I don't particularly give a shit that they don't have the balance sheet available at someone's house.

 

I did like the "we don't have a complaints procedure so we've just made this one up now. As you can see we have yet to complete this made up process so suck it" 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Hhtoon

[AJ9]

1 hour ago, HTT II said:

Heron’s no arsehole man 

 

Was talking about the twitter lad! 

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, alijmitchell said:

 

Was talking about the twitter lad! 

I know ha ha, was being silly!