MichaelNUFC

Yeah. I've thought a lot about it, and I've thought about whether it would be right for another fans group to go head to head against the trust. No need for that to happen to be honest. Arsenal have a seperatly run Supporters Trust and a Supporters club and both do different things that are mutually beneficial to their fanbase. There is no conflict of interest. The Arsenal Trust has achieved its goal of a stake in the club and the ASC has bought the much vaunted pub. I don't actually think that those running the Trust are against the idea of a seperate supporters club emerging but as I've said before I don't belive the current plight of NUST is in any way related to it being a Trust or not being a Trust; its come about by them failing to properly communicate with their paying membership, failing to properly represent fans views in the media and failure to build any sort of meaningful relationship with the club. These failures have come about by the adopted policies of the current elected board; none of which are recommended by any Trust guideline; quite the opposite, in fact. Still: Next members meeting March 3rd...and I didn't hear a 'no' on using the Irish Centre.

It also needs sadly putting on record that the vice chair declared herself "perfectly happy" to lose these 1000+ members who had "joined a supporters club" and replace them with 75 people who wanted to be part of a supporters trust. I was flabergasted by that to be honest and can't understand the logic or reasoning that goes into it. The idea that you just let 1000+ of your paying membership drift off into the night without even trying to swing them around to the benefits of a Trust is staggering. Sitting someone like Colin Whittle in front of them for five minutes and letting him talk passionately about ST's would probably have convinced more than half to give it another year but it seems like those making decisions decided against the worth of this. I was very disappointed to hear this. As for what made 75 people sign up in the last month. I'd guess these figures are largely reactionary and have gone through following the acrimonious departure of Chris Hughton. Whenever there's turmoil at the club the Trust gets a little spike in membership as people seek to invest in the only thing that seems to offer an alternative to what's currently in place. The revelations of how this debt was occurred was staggering. One man (thankfully no longer associated with the Trust) acting alone and given free reign to negotiate with NJC media almost bankrupting the organisation as a result. That this was allowed to happen is, in my view, inexcusable (although its important to point out that this apprently all occurred before the current board were elected). I was also disappointed with the vagueries offered by the former chair of exactly what it was that we got for our money. I wasn't able to get any coherent answer out of anyone in attendence other than that it was some "advertising" for the YWC campaign and there was way too much shrugging of shoulders when I asked for specifics. Instead I was told that the campaign attracted "1000 new members"....a good job as we were apparently letting another 1000 walk out of the door. It seems obvious now why NJC media has all but stopped mentioning the Trust as the two must have a very uncomfortable relationship. Was I the only one who was under the impression that NJC had agreed to offer the Trust free advertising in the light of the 'Al-Together now' campaign the two outfits ran at the close of our relegation season?

Regardless of Time, regardless of venue, a turnout of 18 people for something like this is a fucking disgrace (a meeting that was open till 8:00pm). More people have commented in this thread than could be bothered to turn up. So much for "I'm going and so are five of my mates". Half the audience were made up of former NUSC comittee members. Fucking bullshit. We have ultimately ended up with exactly what we deserve: A joke. Hope everyone is happy with what's happened tonight at the club. You're stuck with it forever because you can't be fucking arsed.

Spent more money than they had coming in at a guess Any actual evidence of this? First time I've heard it mentioned, to be perfectly honest. As for whether more than 90 turn up. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they did but in all likelyhood they won't. At the height of anti-Ashley mutiny I don't recall more than a few hundred ever turning up to meetings held at far more reasonable times as far better known venues. One thing that's always been the case both at this club and at others is that online griping is (sadly) never backed up by actual numbers on the day. Although i'd love to see the lit and Phil packed to the rafters my guess would be that no more than about fifty people (not including the board) will show for it. I hope I'm proven wrong though.

I think it does explain it to be honest, although I agree it doesn't provide a very satisfying reason to ordinary members like us. I'd like to make it clear that I don't agree with the Trust boards increasingly withdrawn behaviour but I do think that the nonsense and mudslinging that's gone on between SW and the now former-chair has a lot to do with the trust board's position on 'rabble rousers'. They've clammed up more and more as the public attacks on them have worsened in a confused state of paranoia and the mistaken belief that saying nothing and ignoring the accusations being levelled at them is somehow 'taking the higher ground'. It's not. Perception is, sadly, reality and when people read accusations in a fanzine and then ask the trust for an explanation only to be greeted with a wall of silence labelled as 'taking the higher ground' or 'not getting involved in tit-for-tat exchanges' they don't think...'oh, what a refreshingly righteous attitude'...no they just go back to the one side of the story they're getting. Trying to get what's left of the board to understand this has been a most frustrating experience. It's to be hoped its one the new chairman understands. The best thing about it all though is that there is an election in March and if attitudes don't change we all have the opportunity to force it. Getting back to the actual AGM though; does anyone have any experience of how these things generally work. I'm specifically wondering how and when members would be able to question the board. Would it all have to be done in the any other business section? Are there any hidden formalities that we as members need to engage in prior to the AGM taking place, i.e formally requesting items to be added to the agenda?

Oh aye, I'm not saying its Razzle or anything, more Nuts-lite with extra football. Nothing wrong with that intrinsically but it is going to be distasteful to a certain audiance and is clearly unsuitable for a website that's meant to be family freindly. I havn't seen the ads in The Mag to compare as I don't buy or generally read fanzines (I only checked this one out so that I could see if NUST had fair reasoning for not promoting it). It's use of partially nude female glamour models throughout obviously marks it towards an adult readership and its therefore quite obvious why an organisation trying to (A) attract sponsorship from business ( B ) attract junior members and ( C ) having a female city councilor on board would never be able to actively promote it. SW and his writers should have been able to understand that tbh. NUST should have still been able to have a column but again, as I understand it from reading the back and forth between committe members and writers of TT on the forum, this was prevented by TT wanting something in return; something that obviously couldn't be offered. Perhaps they still could have patched things up. Unfortunately, instead of trying to have private, reasonable discussions about it TT then went on to publish polemics about certain board members who obviously felt affronted and offended. It's an easy thing to say they should have risen about it but its not so easy in practice.

The really funny thing is that at the outset of NUSC/T the fanzine leaders who did actually put the whole show together (Michael Martin of TF, Biffa of NUFC.com and Mark Jenson of The Mag) seemed adamant that they were not publically going to be seen as figureheads as they all expressed an opinion that seeing the same old talking head would only bore people and put them off joining. To be fair to him I don't think Mark J is a fan of putting himself on TV or even in front of an audiance, its something I've always felt he simply accepts as a byproduct of running his shop/fanzine. That might also explain why communications appear to have clammed up under his chairmanship.

Please feel free to correct me if you know differently but as I understand it the situation was this. SW offered NUST a regular slot in his fanzine on the proviso that NUST promote the said fanzine in return. At that point however both The Mag and True Faith were allowing the Trust to have a section without any such return favour being required. NUST therefore felt that it would be unfair to offer one fanzine something they didn't do for the others. Given that they were/are courting politicians, big business as well as running youth football projects and trying to attract a junior membership, they also felt it would be inappropriate, if not impossible, to promote SW's fanzine which is, for reasons best known to its editor, randomly filled of pictures of half naked lasses. What seemed to happen next was that various people who write for that fanzine began appearing on the NUST forum accusing Mark Jensen of hypocrisy as his fanzine (which has never been actively promoted by NUST) carries adverts for bars which advertise 'topless totty'. The difference (aside from the massive difference in actual adult content) that these people missed was that NUST only has a column in The Mag, they don't and never have promoted it in exchange for having that column. As I understand it NUST never had a problem providing SW with content for his magazine, they simply could not offically promote it in turn (much as they didn't promote MJ's fanzine) and as such were unable to fulfil the criteria that SW wanted in exchange for a page. This is the point where the two sides should have come together and come to some sort of consensus for the good of the trust. I would have thought that if SW really does care about the Trust then he would have understood why his magazine, which by his own admission aims to be a cross between a fanzine and 'Nuts' wasn't the best thing for a professional body like the Trust to be promoting to a multi-gender membership that includes young children. Unfortunately he then let a certain person (who has always had an agenda against the other fanzines) right a series of polemics in this same magazine; railing against NUST's board and against individual members of that board. It's no real surprise that after these personal attacks went to print the Trust board simply felt unable to work with him on anything. This isn't a case of the Trust not reacting well to criticism...I read the article in question and it was absolutely a personal attack that centred on one particular person and encouraged further abuse via his email address which it printed. When someone does a hatchet job on you in print then its very difficult to just smile and say...okay, lets work together and pretend nothing happened. And this, in my view, is the problem with involving senior fanzine figures in the running of the Trust; there is too much past history, suspicion and bad blood between too many of them. It's a real pity as this, if nothing else, should have been the one thing they could all find to unite around. Instead, they've shamed themselves by letting petty personal squabbles get in the way of making valid, sustainable progress in what should be a thriving supporters movement. Once again, I apologize if any of the above is incorrect but this is the way things went down as I understand it and I havn't seen anyone, particularly those who came slinging mud about it on the NUST forum, actually attempt to deny it.

Trying to avoid a bollocking at the AGM? Basically I reckon so, he knows fine well that 90% of whats wrong with the current setup is him so hes getting out of the firing line. He'll still run things from the background as he always has done. Surely its only a few months until the elections isn't it? I believe the last ones were in March. My fear for this years elections is over some of the dubious 'personalities' who might stand instead and benefit from the mess that's gone on this year. Arent elections every two years? Previously Ive thought the same re personalities however having spoke a number of times to probably the main one we can all think of I have to admit that should he stand he would definitely do a better job. He definitely has the interests of the Trust at heart when you hear him talk about it. Really? Why did he take no part in the founding of either NUSC or NUST when all the other fanzines (even those who later withdrew) invested time and money in it? Did he have NUST's best interests at heart when he was asking for free publicity for his fanzine in order to give the NUST a mention? What about when they told him he couldn't have it as they didn't offer it to any of the other fanzines in exchange for a space and, in seeming retaliation, he allowed people who we know to have previously helped broadcast the private telephone numbers of committee members to begin writing vindictive personal attacks on members of the current board (whom they've never even met). Did he have their best interests at heart when Colin Whittle and others were trying to set up a Trust back in the nineties and instead of backing that project he chose to accept a job with the club; one engineered by Freddie Fletcher and one which basically killed any chance of proper supporter representation as the role was in reality nothing but a name? He has described this, in his own words as: "very happy years at the club"...for him, I'm sure. Sorry but I'm not convinced that he's done anything but sit back and watch other people build the Trust before picking his moment. Frankly; the day NUST starts running talk-ins with Cass Pennat is the day I give up on it altogether. Feuding between fanzine personalities has been the central cause of nearly everything that's gone wrong with the NUST in the past year and, I'm willing to bet, the reason for the gradual withdrawal of effective communication as people put backs to the wall in the face of vindictive personal attacks. As I've said before, for this reason nobody associated with the running of a fanzine will be getting my vote in future under any circumstances. While we're at it; scrap the position of chairman. Internal politics was not what NUST was supposed to be about. Dont get me wrong Ive always been a critic of SW however after having spent a little time with him and had a couple of dealings I can see that hes not as bad as he comes across. Thats not me endorsing him for the board either btw or even the thought he would want to go for it because I had believed he would have done last year. I think what Im getting at is that in a toss up between him and Jensen then theres no contest for me and thats a worry considering I would have classed Mark as a friend and ally in the past. Fair enough, I'm just hoping its neither. We've had enough fanzine politics this year.

Yes, this is the main problem and its been identified and raised with the board both publically and privately many times now. It's what has led to the resignation of board members and the extreme frustration of other non-board members who help the NUST out on a voluntary basis. I'm sure that alot of the scepticism is unfounded just as Peter and myself probably read all kinds of inaccurate ramblings about the motivations and machinations of the NUSC when we were a part of its background (NU$C anyone?). What I will say is that I do not believe volunteers should be subjected to the kind of malicious printed and published attacks that have taken place in the past six months; attacks made by fellow supporters of this club. No matter how strongly people feel about the performance of the said volunteers in their roles there is surely a line that needs to be drawn. Yes, election means accountability but not to the extent that articles are published referring to people who have worked hard for the organisation as "toadying" or "obsequious" as I read in one local fanzine. Is it any wonder if those people have become withdrawn as a result. We are talking about decent people with good intentions - they have simply made mistakes. I have personal experience of this. When I served on the NUSC board I had to put up with a supposedly professional journalist writing a vindictive attack on me in his blog because he didn't like the way I spoke to Derek Llambias at a meeting (in actuality he more than likely didn't like the fact that we pointed out the glaring ommissions in his write-up of that meeting). That wasn't fun for me to endure and I could easily have just said "fuck it" and walked away if I hadn't recieved the support I did from people who actually mattered to me. That's why I can maybe sympathise with some of the current board for pulling on the tin hats and closing up the gates even though its immensly frustrating to watch and its not the way I personally would have reacted. In all honesty I'd have liked to see them carrying a greater precence in the press after the Hughton departure but aside from that I'm not entirely sure whether there was anything much they could do? Would the protests that followed and then died off have been greater or longer lasting with NUST behind them or would it have simply given Northumbria police an easier target? I'm not sure about that one. I agree though that your second question is vital and needs to be answered at the AGM. Agree with this too; hopefully the new chairman can instill some better direction until the elections in March.

Trying to avoid a bollocking at the AGM? Basically I reckon so, he knows fine well that 90% of whats wrong with the current setup is him so hes getting out of the firing line. He'll still run things from the background as he always has done. Surely its only a few months until the elections isn't it? I believe the last ones were in March. My fear for this years elections is over some of the dubious 'personalities' who might stand instead and benefit from the mess that's gone on this year. Arent elections every two years? Previously Ive thought the same re personalities however having spoke a number of times to probably the main one we can all think of I have to admit that should he stand he would definitely do a better job. He definitely has the interests of the Trust at heart when you hear him talk about it. Really? Why did he take no part in the founding of either NUSC or NUST when all the other fanzines (even those who later withdrew) invested time and money in it? Did he have NUST's best interests at heart when he was asking for free publicity for his fanzine in order to give the NUST a mention? What about when they told him he couldn't have it as they didn't offer it to any of the other fanzines in exchange for a space and, in seeming retaliation, he allowed people who we know to have previously helped broadcast the private telephone numbers of committee members to begin writing vindictive personal attacks on members of the current board (whom they've never even met). Did he have their best interests at heart when Colin Whittle and others were trying to set up a Trust back in the nineties and instead of backing that project he chose to accept a job with the club; one engineered by Freddie Fletcher and one which basically killed any chance of proper supporter representation as the role was in reality nothing but a name? He has described this, in his own words as: "very happy years at the club"...for him, I'm sure. Sorry but I'm not convinced that he's done anything but sit back and watch other people build the Trust before picking his moment. Frankly; the day NUST starts running talk-ins with Cass Pennat is the day I give up on it altogether. Feuding between fanzine personalities has been the central cause of nearly everything that's gone wrong with the NUST in the past year and, I'm willing to bet, the reason for the gradual withdrawal of effective communication as people put backs to the wall in the face of vindictive personal attacks. As I've said before, for this reason nobody associated with the running of a fanzine will be getting my vote in future under any circumstances. While we're at it; scrap the position of chairman. Internal politics was not what NUST was supposed to be about.

Trying to avoid a bollocking at the AGM? Basically I reckon so, he knows fine well that 90% of whats wrong with the current setup is him so hes getting out of the firing line. He'll still run things from the background as he always has done. Surely its only a few months until the elections isn't it? I believe the last ones were in March. My fear for this years elections is over some of the dubious 'personalities' who might stand instead and benefit from the mess that's gone on this year.

Just had word from the Trust that the room is booked until 8:00pm so the AGM will have a maximum two hour running time.

It's a standard thing for most AGMs. Normally a formality. But who are our auditors? Is that who watches the watchmen?

On a completely seperate note does anybody know what 'reappointment of auditors' refers to and why it needs to take up a slot in the AGM?

I can see the point on the beer but a library ffs I know Im always cynical and you tend to try and find the good points but all I can see is this being done purposefully to ensure we dont have time to spend on what should easily have been an hours worth of AOB on its own. 6 -7 on a Monday is a piss take If its confirmed to close at 7:00pm then there'll be no arguments from me about that. I've now used the 'ask the trust' to enquire as, now that Bill is gone from the board, I don't think any of those left ever monitor the forum. Hope to see you and hopefully a few others there anyway. I wonder if the press have been invited...did Lee Ryder ever join?

No; its a non-profit organisation with an unsalaried board. Some trusts do have salaried board members (MUST) but not NUST. To my knowledge the Rob Lee dinner is the first event that's specifically stated itself to be fundraising for their community projects. To be honest I'm quite happy for them to do that as I'd rather membership fees were just banked and saved for when they might come in useful for the Trust's primary aim. Holding individual events to fundraise for the other activities is a good idea as it stops the "that's not what I paid my dues for" argument. anyone going to the Rob Lee dinner should and will know where their money is going. So which is it, a fundraiser for community projects or a fundraiser for the trust? Or are they one and the same? Sort of. It's a fundraiser for the Trust. One of the things the Trust do is carry out community projects. So in the case of the Rob Lee dinner they are specifically telling you that the money raised from it is going towards the community projects rather than, for example, a fund to purchase a stake in the club which is the main goal of a Trust. I think that in truth they've probably had complaints from members interested in the latter about what is funding the community work they do, that's why they've looked to arrange seperate events such as this one to fund it seperately. Similarly I know they've been working for some time to acquire sponsorship to set up a junior trust that will be self funding and won't require paid memberships to support.

The problem there being that the lit and Phil closes at 7:00pm on a Monday although it may well be that booked events such as this are able to run beyond the time its normally open to the public. I've asked for clarification about this on the forum as I don't yet want to be cynical enough to believe that this is only going to last for an hour! Then why book the Lit & Phil in the first place? Its not like its a standard place for these things. Right Tony we need to get 100 football fans together for the AGM What do we need? well beer obviously, everyone needs a pint at these things. Beer...tick Most people work so it'll need to be convenient timewise. Time...tick (tock)....ok boss I think Ive got it, 6 til 7 on a workday in a library, sorted. Excelleeeent I actually think that holding it in a place that doesn't serve drinks was a good idea since the occasion calls for sobriety and clear heads arguing logical, well made points (not pissheads shouting about Jimmy Nail as we sometimes got in the past ). If it gets confirmed that this event won't or can't last beyond the hour though then that really is mind boggling given all the "other business" that needs to be covered!

No; its a non-profit organisation with an unsalaried board. Some trusts do have salaried board members (MUST) but not NUST. To my knowledge the Rob Lee dinner is the first event that's specifically stated itself to be fundraising for their community projects. To be honest I'm quite happy for them to do that as I'd rather membership fees were just banked and saved for when they might come in useful for the Trust's primary aim. Holding individual events to fundraise for the other activities is a good idea as it stops the "that's not what I paid my dues for" argument. anyone going to the Rob Lee dinner should and will know where their money is going. will they??? They will if they read the advertisements/promotional material which clearly state which trust activities its a fundraiser for. Can't see why there'd be any confusion over what the dinner/talk in is raising funds for here or why anyone attending should later grumble that they thought it was about raising funds to buy a stake int he club. It's been clearly stated everywhere its been promoted that the Rob Lee event is to raise funds for community projects. Well, hopefully not at a charity dinner they wont. The poster above was asking why NUST have to hold a fundraiser "every eight weeks". I was just pointing out that they don't and nor have they done so but that when they do, as in the Rob Lee dinner, I think I prefer them stating what they money raised is going towards as they've done with this one; that way I can decide how much I want to support it...or not as the case may be. I suppose you could disagree that they should be doing any community activities but if so then that's something for members to raise at the AGM. I'd like to think most people are open to the ideas of some community activities/charity stuff though. After all, even the old NUSC raised £3000 for Sir Bobby's charity/held comedy nights, etc. In my opinion it's the balancing of activities that is currently in most need of fixing/addressing with NUST.

No; its a non-profit organisation with an unsalaried board. Some trusts do have salaried board members (MUST) but not NUST. To my knowledge the Rob Lee dinner is the first event that's specifically stated itself to be fundraising for their community projects. To be honest I'm quite happy for them to do that as I'd rather membership fees were just banked and saved for when they might come in useful for the Trust's primary aim. Holding individual events to fundraise for the other activities is a good idea as it stops the "that's not what I paid my dues for" argument. anyone going to the Rob Lee dinner should and will know where their money is going.

The problem there being that the lit and Phil closes at 7:00pm on a Monday although it may well be that booked events such as this are able to run beyond the time its normally open to the public. I've asked for clarification about this on the forum as I don't yet want to be cynical enough to believe that this is only going to last for an hour!

Honestly it doesn't, because INUSA (to my knowledge) never had 1500 paying members plus tens of thousands of email subscribers, 11'000 + people following it on various social network sites. It never had the level of infrastructure and local governmental support that the Trust has (including an MP on the board). it was, to be frank (no pun intended) one man and his son trying to do something when nobody else seemed bothered. Unfortunately due to it lacking all of the above INUSA was never in a position to do anything other than be a convenient mouthpiece for the press which, to be fair to Frank Gilmour, is as much down to the inherent laziness of certain journalists as it was to him. Once the press have your number its very difficult to dissuade them that you don't want to be bothered by them anymore. The Trust on the other hand is in a great position to do everything that INUSA couldn't. It just needs to start doing them or at the very least telling people what its doing. It's in no way dead, it just hasn't progressed at face value in any meaningful, explainable way over the past year...and that's the dissapointing thing. I'm not going to criticise or attempt to analyse what project the questions in the survey are ultimately leading towards. I'll look at the finished offering and see what I think. I'm just glad that they appear to be finally listening to concerns and are finally doing something to engage with the membership. In all honesty this is one of the least cynical looking surveys I've seen from an organisation. There are clear opportunities to note the strength of our beliefs on several of the things we've complained about and clear opportunities to show what we think they should and shouldn't be focussing on. It's an improvement in my view but it should only be the beginning of that improvement. Does the club recognise the Trust as being valid? and if not why after a year are they asking for renewals? What the fuck are you talking about now? They have no contact with the club, media or anyone anything to do with Newcastle United. I don't expect you to understand why this is relevant. But just take a look at their latest news letter; http://www.nust.org.uk/fan-mail-the-fsf-ne...h-december-2010 Not relevant to Newcastle or Newcastle United. It could be for any club. It's no wonder they have achieved nothing in a year. but that is because that is the NUST forwarding on the Football Supporters Federation email: so it should be generic and catch all. Precisely. This isn't even an NUST news letter, its just them forwarding on a newsletter from the FSF and that's made fairly obvious in the email to anyone who reads it...or at least to anyone who reads it without being determined to fume at all costs. This reminds me of people who complain when the RSS feed occasionally picks up stories about other Trusts. Does anybody honestly think the NUST is sitting there thinking..."hmm, a story about Plymouth, better publish that as top priority"?. Ridiculous levels of conspiracy going on here and I can't help but think that many of them are deliberate because the people making them are determined that this project is going to fail and don't want to hear that it can be easily still be a success if a few things are fixed. Why anyone would want NUST to fail is beyond me. Like I say, the infrastructure is there, the membership is, surprisingly, still decent. They simply need to begin re-engaging with that membership and with the press. To say that they have no contact with the press is incorrect, it's simply that they arn't maximising that relationship as they used to. As I noted above, the assumption that the press will forget about them is incorrect (just look at the above example of how many years they hounded Gilmour for after the folding of INUSAC). It seems rather that the current board have elected not to use these contacts. That's baffling to me personally and its one of the strategies I'd like to hear more on at the AGM - I suspect it started out as a 'don't let them come to us, we'll go to them' type affair, which is sensible but still needed more of the latter to work effectively. I can guarantee that the press havn't forgotten about the NUST...rather it seems to NUST arn't feeding them enough, hence them turning back to certain 'local personalities' during the recent furore over Hughton.

Honestly it doesn't, because INUSA (to my knowledge) never had 1500 paying members plus tens of thousands of email subscribers, 11'000 + people following it on various social network sites. It never had the level of infrastructure and local governmental support that the Trust has (including an MP on the board). it was, to be frank (no pun intended) one man and his son trying to do something when nobody else seemed bothered. Unfortunately due to it lacking all of the above INUSA was never in a position to do anything other than be a convenient mouthpiece for the press which, to be fair to Frank Gilmour, is as much down to the inherent laziness of certain journalists as it was to him. Once the press have your number its very difficult to dissuade them that you don't want to be bothered by them anymore. The Trust on the other hand is in a great position to do everything that INUSA couldn't. It just needs to start doing them or at the very least telling people what its doing. It's in no way dead, it just hasn't progressed at face value in any meaningful, explainable way over the past year...and that's the dissapointing thing. I'm not going to criticise or attempt to analyse what project the questions in the survey are ultimately leading towards. I'll look at the finished offering and see what I think. I'm just glad that they appear to be finally listening to concerns and are finally doing something to engage with the membership. In all honesty this is one of the least cynical looking surveys I've seen from an organisation. There are clear opportunities to note the strength of our beliefs on several of the things we've complained about and clear opportunities to show what we think they should and shouldn't be focussing on. It's an improvement in my view but it should only be the beginning of that improvement.

Just did the survey and relayed my feeings. I thought aspects of it were the closest we are going to get to an admission of the things that the Trust has let unfortunately let slide this past year...but at the very least it shows that they have heard enough compaints over these things to now realise that they actually might constitute something like a consensus and not just be the opinion of one or two muck rakers (whose existence shouldn't cloud the fact that sometimes they are close to the truth). That's good I suppose and thankfully there were multiple opportunities for expression of views and not just multiple choice stuff. Main points I raised were the need to return to prominence in the media after practically disappearing since the elections were held. (much) Better communication with the membership and a more critical voice in relation to the various attrocities the club has seen fit to hand us this past year. Clarity of vision and direction were also noted as essential for improvement. PR was also mentioned and I think that's a must for them, they've made so many daft face-palm errors such as running their comedy night advert above their own opinion piece on the day Hughton was terminated, that its obvious something is awry in that department and its good to see them actively recruiting in that department.

Just banged in my complaint. I was keen to note some of the more offensive things I've seen aired on MOTD2 over the years, such as one of their pundits discussing one player "absolutely raping" another....