Norwich City Supporters Trust

[Personal Trainer]

For those who have been following the Norwich City Supporters Trust thread, here is an interesting piece on Portsmouth 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/11/portsmouth-mansfield-upbeat-debts 

and another on the lack of governance at Bolton Wanderers  

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/oct/11/phil-gartside-bolton-wanderers-abyss

 

[lappinitup]

Portsmouth is an interesting one. They've done well to clear their debts but I think I'm right in saying they have been in receipt of £8m parachute payments from the Premier League since the Trust took over. It will be interesting to see how they do from now on.

Conversely, Notts County was run by their trust who found they couldn't sustain the financial support and subsequently sold out to those little rascals Munto Finance, a Middle Eastern consortium, who brought in Sven and Sol Campbell to much fanfare.

Scottish club Hearts is another one to keep an eye on........

"On Monday 12 May 2014, The Ann Budge fronted Bidco 1874 took control of Heart Of Midlothian Plc, Budge who fronted and financed the Bidco 1874 group which have taken over the reigns at the club became an unpaid executive chairwoman of the club. The Bidco group plan to hold the club for a possible five years before the fans backed Foundation of Hearts supporters group take control. The Foundation put in £1 million for the running of the club until the final legal exit of administration. The Foundation will then need to pay a further £2.6 million (£2.5m to cover the loan given by Bidco1874b Ltd to Hearts to finance the Creditors' Voluntary Agreement + £100,000 for the shares) to take 75% of the shares in the club and with that the running and decision making within the club. In addition, the Foundation has also committed itself to provide a further £2,8m (£1.4m per year for two years) working capital for the club. Funding for the deal comes from 8000+ people donating cash via a monthly direct debit".

Getting fans to donate once is one thing but to hope they maintain that level of ongoing financial support is another. We'll wait and see.

I'll have a look at Bolton later.

 

[GazzaTCC]

The essence of what Portsmouth are now about is that the spend according to their current revenue streams. That's exactly what FFP is all about.

Forget the "noise" from down the A140 about parachute payments being "unfair" to other Championship clubs, or, a "reward for failure". If you spend (2012-13) £18m when your revenue is only £13m, you need to get your own house in order first!

 

[gerryinromania]

As you said Lappinitup, the Hearts scenario seems a bit strange. Are those 8000 monthly direct debit contributors legally obliged to continue their payments as with a loan or HP agreement?

 

[Canaryboy]

Conversely, Notts County was run by their trust who found they couldn't sustain the financial support and subsequently sold out to those little rascals Munto Finance, a Middle Eastern consortium, who brought in Sven and Sol Campbell to much fanfare

There is a good chance that consortium didn't even exist, it was an elaborate scam by British man Russell King.

There was a panorama on this, good watch....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU3eTnU7gJ0

 

[TILLY]

We seem to have moved away from the topic of this thread which appeared to me to be a recruitment drive by Robin on behalf of the 'reinvented' Norwich City Supporters Trust. Lappinitup appeared to be asking why such an opening post was only placed on THIS website as opposed to ALL websites run and or used by Norwich fans. An answer to that was swerved by Mike and we have ended up where we are now discussing other clubs financial problems.

 

[splutcho]

I wouldn't be sure of the point of posting it on other sites, because it'd be shot down in two minutes with people stomping their feet, name calling and generally being unpleasant. That's just my two cents mind.

 

[TILLY]

Can't argue with that Splutcho but surely the Trust are to protect the interests of ALL Norwich fans in the event of a financial crisis at Carrow Road and that would include some foot stomping, name calling unpleasant individuals so not wishing to engage them over the internet ( if that is in fact the case ) begs the question what would happen at any meetings.

 

[Lone Star Canary]

If a good-faith effort is made to communicate with fans, that's good enough for me.  It's neither efficient nor effective to hit every possible line of communication to please 100% of the target population.  Honestly, if it were me I wouldn't have bothered with some online groups out there because they are tiny/dead/dying, and while WotB seems to have a lot of folks on it, it's outdated structure makes it a terrible forum if what you're seeking is a two-way discourse.

[rant on]  And that's the thing... communication (that's what we're talking about here, isn't it?) has to be a two-way street.  I've been part of organizations (not just fan clubs or other sports-related items) where I can put together a great website, Facebook page, and twitter account. I can set up automated systems that text members with key information at critical times... but some people just don't want to avail themselves of it.  They can't be bothered to go online and find something that can be looked up in ten seconds with a simple google search.  If people want to make themselves a part of the system, the onus is on them to become engaged.  But no, it's sometimes easier to whine and complain about being left out because things aren't being spoon fed from a silver platter. [rant off]

Besides, it's not as if all the information regarding the trust is in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory in the cellar of the planning department.

 

[GazzaTCC]

Surely, it is for the Trust to decide how it communicates with both it's members and gets its presence and message out to potential members?

Whether this be through local press, relevant local radio programmes, the Trust's website (which needs improving) Social Media, including both Twitter and Facebook, or message boards, some of which clearly have a greater reach and are more effective as a means for communicating than others.

All of the above are currently used to varying degrees (and probably with varying degrees of success) as means of communications / getting the message out there. The range is extensive and there are plenty of opportunities for all to interact and get involved if they so wish. There is no reason for anyone to feel excluded, especially if they've actually got something meaningful to contribute.

 

[TILLY]

Gazza, it appears from various comments made by the new blood on the Trust Board that you have a tough road ahead to shake off and dust down the impression I have at this moment in time.................

The board being reinvented from 'something of an irrelevance'

The secretary 'hidebound by an ancient and conservative Board'.

The website 'needs improving'

That 'too many of the Board members have seen the Trust as a sort of monthly social club without any understanding or desire to help with what constitutes the donkey work of a supporters group'.

Now correct me if I am wrong but those responsible for these shortcomings are still around on the Board some as officers.

Those same people who sat on their hands back in 2009 ( mind you the vice chairperson regularly corresponded with the local press criticising fans who spoke out) those same people who never answered e-mails from various other groups inviting them to take part in social functions, those same people who year upon year declined to take part in the popular and successful NCISA Canary Challenge.The irony is not lost on me that now NCISA is no more they are quite happy to run it !

Good luck to you mate together with Robin, Kathy, Mandie and Neville but my view is only a coup will get me to put my hand in my pocket.

 

 

[Personal Trainer]

To all those involved in this discussion (no matter what your viewpoint is).

If you are really interested and in the name of transparency, e-mail me on ncst.sec@ntlworld.com and I will send you all the NCST Annual Reports from 2004 onwards.

 

[GazzaTCC]

Thanks John. At first read I thought you were attributing all those quotes to me. One is mine, some of the others I recognise from this thread.

Notwithstanding the above, I've yet to attend a Trust meeting. I know three of the members already. As for the rest, it's not really appropriate to form advanced judgements based on what they've either said / not said, or, done / not done in the past. I really need to understand the respective roles and responsibilities before deciding their worth or otherwise to the Trust.

It has to be about now, not the past, and where we go from here.

There is little doubt that the Trust faces some challenges, not least because the Club has just benefited enormously after three consecutive years in the Premier League. The way the Club now interacts with various fan groups has changed over the past three years as a consequence. I'm sure you recognise this yourself?

Two examples (and I'm sure there are more) readily spring to mind; the fund raising efforts by Foncy and the PUP's cash, both are now viewed totally differently by the Club?

Although i understand that the Trust has a good working relationship with the Club, I remain to be convinced that its efforts are fully appreciated.

It's just a personal view, but i think that there's an "air of complacency" by both the Club and certain fans, just because the Club is currently debt free. That in itself can change very rapidly if (heavens forbid) we don't make a quick return to the Premier League.

OTBC

 

[PUPnutty]

I can only speak for PUPs. Our fundraising efforts are and always have been greatly appreciated by the club. After FONCY finished, who always appreciated us too, we donated straight to the academy and were always appreciated and welcomed by Ricky Martin and his team. When the club were in a position to invest heavily into the Academy it was the PUPs themselves who decided that the funds could be better used elsewhere. They felt that the comparatively small amount we raised could make a bigger difference to a charity. I then took this to Ricky and David McNally for advice. It was the fact that we were all Norwich City supporters that had drawn the PUPs together from across the world. I felt that for us to continue the football club would have to be central to any change we made. The club discussed this and Ricky came to me with the suggestion that we raised money for the CSF and the club treated us as though we were still raising funds for the academy. That's the measure of how the club appreciate and believe in us! In return the PUPs have gone from strength to strength with Pink Un Posters pledging money to the CSF as well as funding us from their own pockets. At the presentation last month it was obvious that the club valued us as much as they ever had and the CSF were brilliant too showing a great interest in our PUPs and what we have achieved as a group.

As for the club changing the way it interacts with various fans groups I agree there were changes after 2009. And some good people were hurt by those changes. But the bottom line is that the new regime has given us a club we can be proud of from top to bottom. They still listen to us but in different ways. They strive to employ best people who in turn strive to bring the whole club up to the highest standard attainable. I don't think any fans groups could have come close to achieving that. But what we can achieve, and what the club recognise about us, is to play our part in being the best supporters we can. For me PUPs is very much part of that.

As for this thread being here and not elsewhere I do get the feeling that the Pink Un are not worthy of it. Which is strange because many of the Trust Board only met in the first place because of the PInk Un and PUPs social events. As Glen Roeder famously says on The Scrimmage "What a world we live in now eh.......)   

 

[TILLY]

A question for Mike.

Would the Trust annual reports show how much income is received from the £10 annual subscriptions ? 700 members would give an income of £7000 and allowing for say 10% admin costs would allow for roughly 63 shares even at the current price to be purchased year upon year. However this appears not to be the case as your latest purchase in August of 25 shares at £100 each includes £1500 donated when NCISA was wound up some 15 months before that.

Basically my question is how many of the 700 Trust members have paid up for this year 2014 ? If as I suspect it is a low number surely to achieve your aim of purchasing enough shares to avoid being an 'irrelevance' non payers need a reminder. As I have mentioned elsewhere I know of several people who have paid their initial tenner and then have never received any follow up in subsequent years.

 

[Personal Trainer]

John

Despite still waiting for the ice-pick, I have not tried to hide anything as there is nothing to hide.

The Annual Reports cover the activities of the Trust over the year.

The Annual Accounts are presented by the Treasurer at the AGM and submitted to the FCA and SD as required under the rules.

At the last count i.e. 2013 there were 200 paying subscriptions by SO and 75 via PayPal hence the ability to purchase £2500 of shares, the maximum the Club would agree to sell in one tranche as reported in the 2013 Annual Report.. 

We know of a huge number of people who are shareholders in the Trust, who after a mailshot with a "If not at this address please return to sender" and an e-mail shot which returned as address unknown, cannot be traced. There are others who wished to become shareholders in the early years but did not wish to take up an annual subscription which of course they are entitled to do.

 

[lappinitup]

 I've yet to attend a Trust meeting. I know three of the members already. As for the rest, it's not really appropriate to form advanced judgements based on what they've either said / not said, or, done / not done in the past. I really need to understand the respective roles and responsibilities before deciding their worth or otherwise to the Trust.

Wow Gazza, sounds as if you're going in all guns blazing.

The first part of that paragraph which I've highlighted sounds highly irregular. The normal procedure to get elected to the board in most organisations is to be proposed, seconded, and then endorsed by the electorate on the floor at a meeting, but as you've only met three of the existing board members so far, one can only assume you've been co-opted by one of these three.

The second part of the paragraph which again I've highlighted suggests you have been charged with assessing existing board members with view to removing them if you feel their 'worth' is below the new standards set. I wonder if the existing board members are aware of these changes and what their reaction to them are.

I must say your comments along with Beauseant's comments on the opening page do make this sound like a coup or have I read it wrong?

 

[TILLY]

I have not accused you of trying to hide anything Mike but merely to use one of your expressions looking for 'transparency'. I must say I am somewhat surprised that over 400 of your 700 members have either vanished or have no desire to be contacted.

For the information of Lappinitup I note that the Trust website shows Gazza as having been co-opted which you had assumed anyway. What appears strange is that amongst a Board made up of 15  people he has only met 3 so it appears that he got the nod without appearing for what I will crudely describe as some sort of interview.

 

[Canaryboy]

which included £1500 gifted by NCISA when it was wound up. 

I have no desire whatsoever to get involved in a political debate, and know none of the people involved here personally, but I'm a little curious about something.

If relations between the then-leaders (for want of a better word) of NCISA and those of NCST were not great, why did the NCISA elect to donate their funds to NCST?

Admittedly I'm not sure how these organisations operate or whether they have a watertight 'constitution' of some sort. Just curious as to why NCISA, if they didn't support NCST and had criticisms of the way that they operated (e.g. criticising fans, not attending St Andrews Hall, and what I am perceiving here - either incorrectly or correctly - as some bad blood?), would then support them financially, rather than direct the funds elsewhere?

Also, does anybody know whether the NCFC Shareholders Association still exists? They don't appear to have updated their website since 2011, has that been disbanded too?  

 

[Canaryboy]

As an impartial observer on this thread, it does sound as if the NCST need to introduce a paypal subscription system which automatically takes funds once per year (easy to set up), removing membership from people who cancel the subscription. Can also offer annual direct debits, with any cheque payers being given a reminder to pay. Seems pointless having non-paying members. Could also offer a life membership for a larger one-off payment? If you don't renew then surely you are no longer a member, but simply a name on a mailing list?