Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[robbo_11]

SImple way around this would be to document and share minutes of board meetings surely? If the idea was awful and could see why it was shot down then fair enough, but it doesn't lend itself to a fair process. It does exactly what they say they'll do to provide a formal voice to supporters, although from the board members perspective that have left it would seem the trust can't even do that.

 

It seems like it has gone too far down the number of members rather than the importance of a members voice. 

[Heron]

4 minutes ago, robbo_11 said:

SImple way around this would be to document and share minutes of board meetings surely? If the idea was awful and could see why it was shot down then fair enough, but it doesn't lend itself to a fair process. It does exactly what they say they'll do to provide a formal voice to supporters, although from the board members perspective that have left it would seem the trust can't even do that.

 

It seems like it has gone too far down the number of members rather than the importance of a members voice. 

100%

[Heron]

Just a few thoughts and to shed a little light on what I believed and shared...

 

I believe it's important for the trust to grow it's members in an organic way, rather than through opportunism and there should be sufficient opportunity to engage in person, as well as over the internet via streams or broadcasts and via email and social media etc. Basically be as accessible as possible. That's difficult to manage perhaps because the time it inevitably takes but I think if you give a structured time and place then you have an opportunity to address many peoples' questions in one go and hopefully save yourself the time and effort to some degree. That's why I suggested a roadshow around WMC's in various suburbs and central ones in town, once a month. I believe supporter engagement is the absolute foundation and fundamentals of any supporters trust - communication and transparency.

 

This would have also lent itself to struggling bars after covid etc. And would have been a clear statement of intent that people would be bold enough to reach out, rather than be reached to. 

 

I agree board meetings should be minuted and I'm fairly confident they have been, however, how much is shared from that I don't know. I do think that any ideas should be discussed, voted upon and the results of board votes should be made clear, so that, despite lending itself to speculation, members and potential members can at least get a feeling for how they're views are being represented at board level, on agenda items.

Members should also be able to recommend agenda items so that it reflects the nost burning issues. 

 

To answer some posts above, I believe there should be some slack provided for those putting there heads above the parapet for the betterment of all our collective experiences. I know Greg is one of those people. He absolutely is a good lad, and has done his fair share of trying to make a difference that many aren't aware of.

However, this is also balanced by accountability and responsibility and unfortunately for Greg, as the chair, people naturally look to him first.

 

I believe that as people who are democratically voted on, they are inevitably going to be called upon to represent people when the time comes, such as the takeover etc. However, they should do so in a humble, modest manner acting as a representative of the group and supporter base rather than as themselves. That goes for any business, fanzine, or team though. It's about building and maintaining morale and the sense of collective achievement.

 

I've tried to keep this positive, I'm sure yous can read between some of the lines. There are several other specifics I could have shared,but won't as it serves no purpose. But what I believed was - in my opinion, not a shared belief by some of the board and the didagreement on fundamentals were what made me realise that it wasn't actually something I wanted to be a part of, and without more diplomacy I couldn't change. I'm normally okay with that but not on subjects I'm really passionate about. 

 

The Trust-in my opinion, has through no fault of its own, had to abort/change its primary objective of the pledge, and now (I would like to think) needs to make engagement it's priority as I believed. Because the only in-road into partial fan ownership is through strength in active numbers and the FSA/Governence. That's why people like that lad on Twitter need to dial it back and consider that it's better long term for a strong trust. I guess some people want to burn it to the ground and start again...and whilst that (even to me) is an acceptable view, it's also pointless unless you actively want to rebuild it. Solutions, not problems, etc... 

 

I appreciate this post maybe comes across as somewhat contradictory, but I know a lot of you would have voted for me on here, and so I'd like to think you have a rough idea of what I was aiming for and why I wasn't willing to hang about.

 

Ultimately, Newcastle United desperately needs Unity. Without a positive short term god knows what the long term looks like. So the faster we forget about the trivial bollocks and unite behind our club, the better.

 

[Thiago]

CHeron Guevera.

[Consortium of one]

I've joined the Trust and left.  I've donated to the fund but stopped.  Im not local so I don't have any skin in this game.  Am I to believe that the Trust does not regularly post minutes?  If so, that is the first sign of a problem.  I would also point out that even if the Trust send minutes out to active members, it should post them publicly, as a form of attraction.  I have some experience with similar type organizations.  A Trust implies transparency on all levels.

[Thiago]

The problem the Trust has right now is that it's in muddy waters because the most prominent leaders also have a podcast and it feels like they are monopolising influence over the fanbase. Personally, I don't mind Alex. I don't always find him Mr Charisma, but that doesn't matter. 

 

Whether we care to admit it or not the landscape has changed around this club. We have a set of owners that while morally horrific clearly want to engage with fans and the region. It does not shock me that people who slogged during the Ashley era are now rushing to the front of the queue for prominence and a chance to be involved. The trouble is, that's now how democracy works. I love the idea of the trust, I enjoyed Greg on Newsnight, but I'd also love to see greater transparency. I say that not just to those of us that have joined up, but also those who may be watching from afar. We cannot, sadly, unite this fanbase as we would like to given some of the rogue characters that want to make YouTube channels talking about their competition cases and how they took down the cartels. 

 

What we can do, however, is unite those good eggs in the fan base that want the best for the club and the wider region. For that, I firmly believe there are more of them than anyone else. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think the trust has more of a role

now than ever. They have a club that might actually engage with them. 
 

I haven’t a clue what’s been going on, but it seems very unwise to have such a crossover between one group of mates (True Faith) and the leadership of the trust. It has to be neutral and open to the ideas and input of all members. 
 

That said, I also don’t actually know what they’re doing that’s wrong at the moment. 

[Guest neesy111]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

That said, I also don’t actually know what they’re doing that’s wrong at the moment. 

 

They aren't following the rules a supporters trust should be doing hence that Twitter thread before.  Nevermind the fiasco with Alex Hurst being let back on which is a farce.

[Fantail Breeze]

20 minutes ago, neesy111 said:

 

They aren't following the rules a supporters trust should be doing hence that Twitter thread before.  Nevermind the fiasco with Alex Hurst being let back on which is a farce.

 

Weren’t they the same rules that they tried to use to defend allowing Alex back?  
 

Strange that they’re picking and choosing which rules to follow.

[robbo_11]

12 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I think the trust has more of a role

now than ever. They have a club that might actually engage with them. 
 

I haven’t a clue what’s been going on, but it seems very unwise to have such a crossover between one group of mates (True Faith) and the leadership of the trust. It has to be neutral and open to the ideas and input of all members. 
 

That said, I also don’t actually know what they’re doing that’s wrong at the moment. 

 

I think that is what the underlying feeling, not really sure what they're doing or what they're not doing. The Trust has an active role to play for supporters and the football club. You would gain more attention bringing back the NUFC Fan Forum because honestly, the club published minutes and their reach is greater than the Trust. It looks like September 2018 was the last fan forum with a host of various representives across the fan base.

 

In fact a quick search shows actions outstanding from December 2019 Fan Focus Groups on the club website with agenda items such as United as One, Ticketing, Stadium and Matchday Experience. It has been two years since these and I'm sure a lot will have changed - quick win for new ownership to broach this in early 2022 and for Trust to put these items to members around a scale of importance.

 

Stick to the basics - represent the fan voice and listen to key issues that come through. We don't need to make this too hard or berate individuals.

[Joey Linton]

I see they've publicly thanked Mark Douglas for his work with the Trust as he's leaving the Chronicle. Wonder if they'll get around to extending that same courtesy to the board members who have left in recent weeks?

[Geordie2302]

Being "that lad" from twitter I saw this and thought it might be useful explaining a couple of things.

 

I didn't set out to do anything other than complain about the election from an issue raised by a NUST council member (not me). I followed the process that is set out in the election policy which was signed off by the board and the Trusts rules.

 

They didn't want to know and tried to fob me off and not follow their rules (not mine). I didn't like that or the way they tried to do it which inferred taking legal action against me or that I was trying to "sue the trust". I kept details records of my interactions and meetings with them.

 

I then started asking for things which any member could ask for and the Trust have to provide. It's written in the communities and benefits act 1984 for anyone who's really arsed to look. 

 

I reached out to a few people including Heron to try and understand what the training board members got as there are regulations that have to be followed for a Trust legally. I'm not sure what light you could paint me in as to the best of my knowledge we've met once where I alluded to a way in which the pledge scheme money "could" be accessed, one of several ideas we had whilst trying to engage fans to protest against the PL. This is even more relevant now given there doesn't seem to be any rules or processes around the scheme that have been shared with members (I have asked directly and they are required by their rules (105) which are on their website to provide bye-laws and policies to members when asked.

 

All of my interactions with the board via email were tempered and factual - based on some emails I've seen from a subject access request they think I was "maliciously motivated". That just isn't the case. I work in assurance and know how important good governance is, it's literally nothing more than that. 

 

I didn't ask anyone for dirt on anyone (and believe I clarified my position to you when we exchanged messages which hopefully showed that) because I don't know who these people are or particularly care other than the lack of engagement. I voted based on the representations made in the statements as always. I don't have any individual issues with anyone and think Greg generally does well when I've seen him in the media. What clearly isn't working is compliance with the regulatory requirements and engaging the membership.

 

The board members aren't "just volunteers" though they are directors and like all directors are subject to the requirements of directors of a company and are subject to the directors disqualification act when they are not complying with the regulations.  Anyone who has paid to be a member is a shareholder. I doubt if many of the board are even aware of this as there's more than just the balance sheet not being available (however giving information / communicating to members is one of the key things they have to do and aren't). I mean that doesn't make for a strong Trust does it?

 

My very first email about this was very much don't worry fella the trust have processes and rules in place that will sort this (they do but they aren't following them in many ways). The FSA advised them to do some simple things and they didn't do those either.

 

Completely agree that fan / community engagement is the way forward and there are minutes taken but not published (last minutes published in 2020). I've got no axe to grind with any individuals on the board and despite any assertion otherwise this all stemmed from the board trying to ignore their own rules. I offered a solution to the initial problem to avoid this issue before the complaint went in, it was broadly if we (included myself as a council member) have fucked up then be transparent and get out in front of it and deal with it. This escalated when it became clear it wasn't just one set of rules they weren't following and they tried to make processes up (which they cant do).

 

A strong trust has to have good governance, comply with the regulations and engage effectively with the membership (as a minimum) but should really engage with the fanbase and the wider community (and if I'm reading between the lines correctly then this was a very good suggestion and why you got one of my votes). The only real difference is that members have voting rights at annual general meetings (which have to be held annually) and special general meetings. 

 

Oh I fully admit that I can be an arsehole and probably am for not letting this go, but why should I? Four months I had to research and write detailed responses to their attempts to avoid the main issue and then all the other ones I flagged. This will ultimately benefit the trust and the membership in the long run even if it just means they get their house in order. 

 

 

 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

And to top it all off, HTT has hacked your account. 

[Joey Linton]

Are they still taking the direct debits? 

[Fantail Breeze]

18 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Are they still taking the direct debits? 

 

I’ll tell you after work.

[Joey Linton]

5 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I’ll tell you after work.

Two months and counting for that promise earlier in the week. 

[Sima]

What an ironic name ‘NUFC Trust’ is when they deserve anything but.

 

Im shocked that a fat unkempt Tory isn’t following the rules like. 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Sima

[Guest]

Two months since the takeover and still no word either way on if they’re still trying to buy a stake in the club, with payments still being taken?

 

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Optimistic Nut

[Consortium of one]

Maybe Ashley is running the trust now?  Or one of his lackeys?

[wormy]

Have they actually been saying/doing anything of note lately? Asking as a non-member so don't get any email updates. I peek at their Twitter but it just seems to be 99% retweets of other NUFC Twitter accounts at this point.

[Guest Biggsbond14]

I joined up a year or so ago and I’ve been highly critical of there direction ever since, on one hand having hissy fits about Ashley and his running of the club and on the other hand doing absolutely nothing to do anything about it . The cynic in me thinking that they wanted to be on the right side of him for future self promotion, as far as the money raised is concerned they have zero chance of raising enough for a share in the club so should give it to a local charity 

[Thiago]

This is why I didn't commit to it. 

[Numbers]

The Trust's communication is worse than Asheys

[Fantail Breeze]

5 minutes ago, ManDoon said:

It’s very shady to have not paid the money to charity and basically gone into silence.

 

You’re talking about the same people who let their mate back on the Board through improper routes and have gone into silence since then, despite promising answers.

[Scoot]

I never renewed my membership after their complete lack of anything meaningful. Them still taking money for a share in the club is fucking laughable.