Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[loki679]

While Montey's suggestions may be slightly unrealistic (or massively unrealistic) what's the harm in trying?

 

Shy kids get nowt.

 

edit:  I bet the Unis have some relationship with SA even if it's just having a load of Saudi students, get them on board.

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

[Raconteur]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

Well, their lawyers, who helped draft the letter, advised them that releasing the initial letter might have negatively impacted on the process.

 

You’re not suggesting they go against their legal advice, are you?

[Greg]

We don't demand a team that wins, we demand a team that tries!

 

We don't demand a Supporters Trust that wins, we demand a Supporters Trust that tries!

 

If NUST doesn't put in a reasonable amount of effort to represent the anger of fans to all who may be able to impact things (the club, the buyers, the Premier League, the Government, the Parliament, etc) then what is the point of the NUST?  Just as there is little enthusiasm for supporting a team full of players who don't try, why would there be any support for a Supporters Trust that doesn't try?  This is the point at which the NUST needs to stand up and show their members why they exist - this is an existential test for NUST!

 

You think this isn't trying?

 

https://nufctrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NUST-Letters-with-PL.pdf?mc_cid=a4a1831fbc&mc_eid=fa029130f5

 

OK, Greg-ol-boy, you asked, and here it is....

 

Sort of.  Congratulations to the NUST, (in relation to the takeover attempt by PIF/PCP/Reubens) they've had a letter, quite a good letter I will agree, sent by a lawyer to the Premier League, knowing full well that the Premier League would give them the same response they've given everybody else.  To assume that the Premier League would have given any different response is incredibly naive.  Additionally, the NUST has announced (only 7 hours prior to this forum reply, which is being typed as soon as I wake up - in Australia), that they've also requested communication with the Football Supporters Association, and spoken on a few media outlets.  As Mrs Brown would say, "that's nice".

 

I put to you the question, has the NUST taken any steps to elicit communication, support, and action from any of the following:

• Former Newcastle United players with a high profile and likely contacts within the Premier League hierarchy (e.g. Alan Shearer, Peter Beardsley, Les Ferdinand, Steve Harper, Malcolm Macdonald, etc)?  A letter, all co-signed by NUFC legends, supporting the takeover, sent to the Premier League and published as an open letter would show strong support from the club's historic figures.  Calls directly from them to the Premier League to approve the takeover would apply pressure from within the broader Premier League community.
   
  
• Current Premier League & Championship clubs?  Letters, signed by senior figures from within other Premier League and Championship clubs, supporting the takeover, sent to the Premier League and/or published as an open letter would show strong support from other clubs within the Premier League.
   
  
• Prominent business and community figures within the Newcastle area?  Letter's, signed by prominent business and community figures would show strong support from the broader Newcastle community.
   
  
• Major sponsors of the Premier League?  Letter's requesting support from major sponsors of the Premier League, and referencing support from those mentioned above, may elicit communication from those sponsors to the Premier League expressing concerns about brand damage.  One of the things we should all have observed in 2019/2020 is how sensitive sponsors are of criticism towards them from popular causes - we need to make the NUFC Takover a prominent concern of the sponsors.
   
  
• Members of Parliament?  Letters to MP's, with reference to support from famous NUFC legends, senior figures of other Premier League and Championship, and support from the Newcastle community (including a physical petition gathered from within Newcastle) would show those MP's just how much support there is, just how much angst there is at its failing, and also provide political cover and pressure for those MP's to start asking questions.  MP's are motivated by an active constituency and are pressured by an angry constituency.
   
  
• Members of the Government?  Letter's to members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, along the lines of the letter sent to the Premier League, and referencing support obtained from those mentioned above could motivate the Cabinet to start making inquiries.
   
  
• Members of the Royal Family?  The UK Royal Family has a a very active role in the country's trade relationships and as such could be implored to intervene, to highlight all of the benefits to the United Kingdom and the North East of passing this takeover.
   
  

 

In a situation, such as this, it is necessary to build and apply pressure against the Premier League.  It is necessary to convince the Premier League that to take the decision or actions that we don't want flies in the face of what their customers, sponsors, and supporters want, and that to do so will cause them trouble.  Organisations, like the Premier League (like most large organisations and government bodies) are not motivated to do what is right, they are motivated by what might result in criticism.  The Premier League is acting the way it is because it is scared of the backlash it might receive if it approves the takeover - we need to construct a picture for them that the backlash will be worse if they don't approve the takeover.

 

This is not the time to be sitting back and saying, "well, we wrote a letter and got a reply.  We've done our bit."  Now is the time for the NUST to be standing up strong; showing leadership, energy, and determination; and attempting to focus the distress and anger within the NUFC community towards an ends that helps move Mike Ashley out of NUFC and new (substantially better) owners in to the club.  I would have hoped to hear that the NUST had, in fact, done most of the above already - but it is not too late, the NUST just needs to get cracking and play some catch-up.

 

 

 

(And, before anyone asks, I would love to help out with this - my excuse is that I am on the other side of the world; that I am not a citizen of the United Kingdom; and have no claim to communicate with any of the above, except maybe the Queen as my Head of State - but even that would have to be via Australia's Governor General, not directly to Buckingham Palace.)

 

I'm busy today with family so can't respond point by point but a lot of this is very unrealistic. Also just to note - on the letter - we didn't write to the PL to get a response, we didn't ask them a single question. The letter was sent to present arguments in favour of the takeover in light of them receiving many letters against it, in a faint hope it could have some (however small) positive influence on the process in face of all the negativity. Many people don't seem to understand that.

 

A lot of the people you refer to, and businesses etc. simply will not put their head above the parapet, because self interest comes first. Take Alan Shearer, he is an employee of the Premier League and his looks after his wider reputation very carefully - he's never going to come out and back something on this.

 

I can guarantee you we are not sitting back - we've not a hell of a lot more than write a letter and will continue to do a lot more.

 

What are you doing personally to stand up for Newcastle fans?

 

Are you a member of the Trust? Have you volunteered your services to the Trust?

 

Being on the other side of the world, in an era of the internet, zoom, teams etc. is not much of a defence...

[Greg]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

Well, their lawyers, who helped draft the letter, advised them that releasing the initial letter might have negatively impacted on the process.

 

You’re not suggesting they go against their legal advice, are you?

 

"The Premier League is unable to comment on a confidential process, but it is reassuring to receive this acknowledgment of receipt of the arguments we presented to the Premier League, which included making them aware that 97% of our members are in favour of this prospective takeover being approved."

 

Reassuring to receive this acknowledgment of receipt of the arguments we presented to the Premier League, really? Yeah we got your letter, and that's basically it. Pretty much a delivered receipt without a read receipt of you were sending an email.

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

[Greg]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

Well, their lawyers, who helped draft the letter, advised them that releasing the initial letter might have negatively impacted on the process.

 

You’re not suggesting they go against their legal advice, are you?

 

"The Premier League is unable to comment on a confidential process, but it is reassuring to receive this acknowledgment of receipt of the arguments we presented to the Premier League, which included making them aware that 97% of our members are in favour of this prospective takeover being approved."

 

Reassuring to receive this acknowledgment of receipt of the arguments we presented to the Premier League, really? Yeah we got your letter, and that's basically it. Pretty much a delivered receipt without a read receipt of you were sending an email.

 

You don't appear to comprehend or understand the reasons why the letter wasn't released at the time. This has been explained in detail in the member update email (here's a clue - it had nothing to do with the content of the reply from Richard Masters - which we said multiple times was nothing more than a basic aknowledgment).

[Greg]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

[Greg]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You don't appear to understand that the answer from Masters was irrelevant. We didn't ask him a single question - we provided legal arguments into the process in favour of the takeover to stand up for members views in light of others doing the same against the takeover. We stood up for our members into the process, this wasn't done to get answers from the PL as we know it was a confidential process, nor was it done for likes on Twitter or PR or anything like that - it wasn't done to make angry people on the internet that aren't even members happy.

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

[Greg]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

[Raconteur]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be cunts.

[Montey]

 

I can guarantee you we are not sitting back - we've not a hell of a lot more than write a letter and will continue to do a lot more.

 

 

Like what?  The NUST can hardly critique NUFC for poor communication whilst also being poor at their own communication.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

 

What are you doing personally to stand up for Newcastle fans?

 

I admit, to date, not a heck of a lot (besides posting on Internet forums and Twitter).  But, to be honest (saying this whilst aware of your last comment, which I will address in turn), I don't know what I can do from the other side of the world - you tell me and I'll do what I can!

 

Are you a member of the Trust? Have you volunteered your services to the Trust?

 

Yes - I am a paid up Lifetime member.  Not yet, but here I am now - you tell us supporters what you need help with!  You need to be leaders, not a knitting circle.

 

Being on the other side of the world, in an era of the internet, zoom, teams etc. is not much of a defence...

 

Do you take phone calls at 3am?  Do you think UK MP's will pay any attention to letters from people outside of their constituencies, let alone from another country?  Do I have any club, player, ex-player, contacts?  Will UK businesses listen to people who don't buy their products (they're not sold in Australia)?  The answer to each of these question is quite obviously no.  That is why any efforts, any campaign, needs to be lead and predominantly fulfilled by people in Newcastle Upon Tyne and the United Kingdom.

 

Am I willing to help - yes, but you need to tell me and others what you need help with.  I am confident there are a lot of passionate NUFC supporters around the world, but the leadership, direction, and primary action has to come from those who are on the ground in Newcastle and the United Kingdom.

 

Here's a quote that seems mighty relevant, “You know what they call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.” - The West Wing (S5,E8)

 

If the NUST need more help then NUST needs to ask for help; the NUST needs to tell people what they need help with.  At the moment the NUST is looking a bit like a weekend walking club, not a representative of NUFC supporters.

 

My first suggestion, which is very simple to action, is - stop getting so offended by criticism.  Listen to any criticism, have a willingness to take it on board and engage with it, accept and acknowledge any potentially valid criticism, be better for the criticism you receive (don't just reject it out of hand, especially from paid members as this is a great way to alienate and lose members).  I am confident no reasonable person expects the NUST to come up with all ideas nor to be the sole actors in any required action.  But, you guys did volunteer to be the leaders of the NUST - so be leaders!  If you need help, work out what you need help with and ask for it!  Don't sit there and sulk while you pound away on your keyboard!

[Montey]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be cunts.

 

Oh the irony of congratulating someone for being "civil" whilst calling their critics "cunts".

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s.

 

He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything.

 

As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. 

[Raconteur]

 

Oh the irony of congratulating someone for being "civil" whilst calling their critics "cunts".

 

I never claimed to be civil. I am frequently a cunt, hence my recognition of cuntery

 

 

 

 

He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything.

 

As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. 

 

No, he didn’t.

 

And maybe I will, maybe I won’t. But Greg’s too decent a guy to call you out for what you’re doing, so I will.

[Greg]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s.

 

He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything.

 

As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. 

 

It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member.

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s.

 

He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything.

 

As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. 

 

It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member.

 

How many members do you have now?

[Rod]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s.

 

He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything.

 

As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. 

 

It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member.

 

How many members do you have now?

  What is your point though?

[Shearergol]

What we definitely need right now is our own fans turning on each other. Nicely done.

[loki679]

What we definitely need right now is our own fans turning on each other. Nicely done.

 

Come and say that to my face you dick.

[Keggy_Keagal]

Yeah NUST why didn't you just get a member of the Royal Family to help out ffs. Could have all been so different.

 

Prince Andrew's not too busy these days .

[Joey Linton]

  tbf "Acknowledging our correspondence" could literally be anything from a detailed response to issues and points within it to getting a read receipt in outlook. The question really is do they give a toss about the contents.

 

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time.

 

Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment.

 

Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers.

 

This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately?

 

Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected].

 

Question dodged 

 

I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable.

 

If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position.

 

You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now.

 

 

Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be c***s.

 

He's pretty much refused to answer my questions, not sure how that's "dealing" with anything.

 

As for calling me that if I did it to Greg I assume I'd get a ban. No doubt you'll be OK though. 

 

It's been explained - but NUST only represents its members. You aren't a member.

 

How many members do you have now?

  What is your point though?

 

My point is wondering what the numbers are.

 

Back when I was a member about ten years ago they became a joke of an organisation who managed to alienate and lose half of their members in around 12 months. The farce of that bid to buy the club etc.

 

There's obviously been a massive recruitment drive ( off the back of Rafa going if everyone is honest) and I wondered what the numbers are now.

 

Problem with people like Greg is he doesn't seem interested in people who gave up on the trust. He's said himself if you aren't aember he isn't interested. That's the wrong way of treating people who have been members previously.