MichaelNUFC

In all honesty I'm increasingly of the opinion it wouldn't have made a difference. If the protests failed then I don't believe it had anything to do with whoever did or didn't lend their names to them/helped organise them and everything to do with the fact that: That's your problem right there. Not enough people care enough to do anything about it. They didn't last time. They apparently didn't this time either. I guarantee you that if the NUST website organised protests, spoke out about it in the press, put out leaflets before the match calling for Ashley's head, appeared on TV/radio, held a rally at the monument, wrote satirical Xmas poems, kicked their way into the supporters panel and personally listened to Derek Llambias lie his arse off for over two hours then reported the results.... ....we'd still have less than 1000 people bothering themselves to attend any officially organised protest...the rest would happily sup Ashley's overpriced pints and buy his deckchair footy tops while having the odd twist about how he's a bit of a ****. F***ing depressing it is; but its a sad reality. It's not just our lot though...it's society in general...ask any of the Liverpool lads about the protests that their supporters trust tried to organise last year...the ones where thousands were purporting to turn up...and in the end less than 200 did. Frankly I'd rather NUST got on with finding real solutions to buy the club (that is after all what they are supposed to be doing) rather than dedicate time once again to arranging protests that I now believe would be arranged anyway and attract the same number of people regardless. Consider me cynicised by experience but I'm increasingly of the opinion that Ashley would have to personally assault some people's grandmothers before they'd finally admit that neither he nor Llambias have any redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

That's actually a pretty good question as it gets to the core of what is currently wrong with NUST in a lot of people's view. There can be a 'supporter's club' running succesfully alongside an equivilent 'supporters trust'; Arsenal provide a very good example of this working extremely well. http://www.arsenaltrust.org/ http://www.arsenalsupportersclub.co.uk/ Having two seperate organisations meant that their trust was able to (succesfully) focus solely on pursuing options to acquire a stake in the club while their supporters club got on with ground level fan issues. Of course that doesn't mean that a supporters trust can't decide to do both with a good measure of success, either, as can be seen by the Manchester United Supporters Trust who have managed to acquire significant capital funding to purchase a stake with fantastic campaign of opposition to their present owners. http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog They're not any closer to actually getting a stake though, despite funds of over £1M banked and perhaps that's telling. NUST is a lot younger than both of these groups and is sometimes apparently trying to cover miles in minutes leading to multiple crossroads with its identity. I personally believe that there is absolutely a need for a supporters trust pursuing a stake in the club but that there is also a need for legitimate fan representation that isn't just a fanzine talking head. It may well be that Arsenal's model might be a good one for us to pursue. It would allow us to seperate the protest and the ground level fan issues from the long term aims of obtaining a stake in the club. At the same time the inevitable image of 'rabble rousers' needn't then be a concern to the Trust in pursuing the cooperation of key figures within the city. There will of course be jokes about the Judean peoples front, etc, but that's why its important to have a clear and well set-out vision; something that has been lacking at NUST post elections. There is precedent to show that such a model can be succesful and satisfy all concerned. Maybe its worth NUST looking into...if indeed they arn't already doing so. Worth raising at the AGM maybe...among numerous other things... I mentioned this two years ago........and they have a pub The supporter's club have the pub...the supporter's trust don't...they have a stake in their football club.

That's actually a pretty good question as it gets to the core of what is currently wrong with NUST in a lot of people's view. There can be a 'supporter's club' running succesfully alongside an equivilent 'supporters trust'; Arsenal provide a very good example of this working extremely well. http://www.arsenaltrust.org/ http://www.arsenalsupportersclub.co.uk/ Having two seperate organisations meant that their trust was able to (succesfully) focus solely on pursuing options to acquire a stake in the club while their supporters club got on with ground level fan issues. Of course that doesn't mean that a supporters trust can't decide to do both with a good measure of success, either, as can be seen by the Manchester United Supporters Trust who have managed to acquire significant capital funding to purchase a stake with fantastic campaign of opposition to their present owners. http://action.joinmust.org/index.php/blog They're not any closer to actually getting a stake though, despite funds of over £1M banked and perhaps that's telling. NUST is a lot younger than both of these groups and is sometimes apparently trying to cover miles in minutes leading to multiple crossroads with its identity. I personally believe that there is absolutely a need for a supporters trust pursuing a stake in the club but that there is also a need for legitimate fan representation that isn't just a fanzine talking head. It may well be that Arsenal's model might be a good one for us to pursue. It would allow us to seperate the protest and the ground level fan issues from the long term aims of obtaining a stake in the club. At the same time the inevitable image of 'rabble rousers' needn't then be a concern to the Trust in pursuing the cooperation of key figures within the city. There will of course be jokes about the Judean peoples front, etc, but that's why its important to have a clear and well set-out vision; something that has been lacking at NUST post elections. There is precedent to show that such a model can be succesful and satisfy all concerned. Maybe its worth NUST looking into...if indeed they arn't already doing so. Worth raising at the AGM maybe...among numerous other things...

That meeting is basically the reason cited by the chair for why we should never hold another members meeting again. You would assume that the abuse hurler was the main reason for his argument wouldnt you? well it wasnt, the abuser was, believe it or not, the PR expert (I shit ye not ) and the now chair got upset at the fact people even dared question the work that was going on. And the people on the other end of the abuse? non other than Mick Martin of True Faith and a respected Solicitor both of whom were instrumental in the setting up of the NUSC. Peter, Was this the meeting at the Strawberry? If so I'm surprised to hear you describe it this way. I wasn't in attendence (I'd departed these shores by that point) but what I read on the committee forum at the time was that the abuse was coming from one of the two you mention as being abused, rather than them being on the recieving end (although I don't doubt that our former PR man also spoke out of turn - as he seemed to fall out with most people and I recall him apologising for losing his head!). I remember because Colin Whittle, who I have the utmost respect for, was close to resigning at the time and I remember texting him asking him to reconsider. Others such as Steve Hastie also spoke up to say they felt intimidated and unhappy with the lack of support from other committee members over what were regarded as verbal abuse from the two you mention. As I recall, most committee members who were in attendence apologised for saying nothing while this went on. I believe the term "fuck the trust" was the main expression that Colin was unhappy with that night, spoken so it was reported, by one of the two who felt that the Trust wern't being militant enough in ousting Ashley and organising all manner of demonstrations instead of building something with credibility to do it first. Again, you were there and I wasn't but I'm surprised to hear this description of events. If I'm wrong then I apologise but this is what I recall reading and it seemed the consensus at the time. This is a very good point and to be totally honest there isn't really any need for talk of 'meltdown' either (at least outside of the present committee all of whom are temorary customdians of the organisation), anymore than there is a reason to declare the concept of government null and void when people decide they don't like the people running it. You simply vote them out and elect people more capable (although I suspect all this may well let some REAL tools get in at the next election). I'll be attending the AGM and I will sure as hell expect answers for this and many other things. Once again there is nothing inherently wrong with the Trust model. The Trust model does not state you shouldn't consult your membership (it states the opposite), the Trust model does not state you shouldn't hold members meetings (again it advises the opposite). The Trust model doesn't state that you shoudn't engage the club, ask probing questions over stuff like that horrible advertising being plastered everywhere or ignore and exclude committee members who were voted in by the membership from important internal debate and discussion. Again, these are all decisions that have been alledgedly taken by individuals and have nothing whatsoever to do with Trust status; something that was acquired for the sole reason that it's the only legitimate way of striving to achieve a fan-owned stake in the club. That's why I find it so depressing that people say they arn't renewing or are giving up on the idea after one term simply because they don't like the direction one elected committe took it in over a little under 12 months. Just vote them out, I'm sure there will be (hopefully sensible) alternatives come election. This was and is supposed to be a long term project and if it goes tits up, yes we can all throw stones at a few hand picked ogres for not performing to scratch, but it will ultimately have failed because people just didn't care enough about the concept and cared too much about the temporary custodians. To me this would be like giving up on my football team because I don't like the people in charge. I wish it was as easy to vote for a new owner of NUFC as it is to vote for a new board of NUST. In reference to the resignation of a board member I would just like to say that imo Bill Corcoran has done more to get this organisation moving and running in the right direction than possibly anyone else involved throughout the organisations short history, from donating premises to chairing public debates to organising special guest speakers for roadshows to speaking to the press to meeting and wooing MP's and members of the council to pouring untold hours into financial proposals and God knows what else. Bill was also instrumental in securing NUST the chance to talk face to face with D Llambias and allow real questions to be put to the man unlike the drivel we got from Thompson house earlier that month. I would like to thank him here as I can't on the official forum for everything he has done and urge him not to blame himself for what has happened but to stand at the next election with his head held high and deservedly take the central place he deserves on any forward thinking committee of this Trust. He will have my vote should he do so and, I suspect, many others. He is a man of intelligence and courage and the fact that he has felt it necessary to resign this term is, quite frankly, a disgrace. And speaking of disgraces what a shame that the handful of well-meaning, genuinelly good people who, three years ago, could be bothered to get together and try and build something that could still be great have now been reduced to arguing the toss with each other or have become seemingly incapable of speaking to each other. It seems like we've forgotten who the real enemy was all along... and how he must be laughing from whatever Dubai Hotel he's currently cashing chips in while he speculates on where he can hang his next tacky hoarding.

Thats how we planned it at the time but its not what its become. I think your email is indicative of the kind of communications put out these days. Theres one a page or two back which sums up the entire thing where the reply states something along the lines of "those that dont renew dont understand democracy" or something like that. EDIT: Just found it. I felt I had better reply to this and I hope nobody minds me jumping straight into an ongoing thread. The quote above being erroneously attributed to an NUST communication is in fact a quote lifted from the NUST forum made my myself. I'm not sure why it has been quoted and used on here as an official NUST response. Perhaps its because, like Peter and Tom, I was a part of the original committee of what was the old NUSC and whoever initially copied and pasted it assumed I still have some sort of involvement with the present board of NUST. To clarify, I don't and the opinion was my own. To explain the context behind my statement I believe that the Trust has the potential to be (within certain sensible guidelines) whatever its members want it to be in terms of a representative voice for Newcastle United supporters. Nobody is allowed to simply come in and do as they want with it. They have a year, like anyone, and if as members we feel that they have wasted their time in charge or taken the wrong attitude or approach then we have the facility to vote them out at the end of that year and replace them with people who better match our aspirations. The board is not the organisation, they are replaceable and will be accountable at the AGM being held in January. I agree with some of the criticism over the lack of direct communication with members and have voiced it both personally to the committee and via the forum. I am also personally unhappy that more hasn't been done to speak out over the current hot topic of the the advertising littering the stadium roof as well as the general lack of presence the Trust has in the local media compared to the past which I don't personally understand given that part of the Trust's mandate is to speak on behalf of its membership. At the same time I have sympathy with those currently in the seats of 'power'. These are (unlike the MUST for example) unsalaried positions that need to be carried out in people's spare time and also expose those people to often disgusting personal attacks (see a certain local fanzine for details). As I'm sure Peter and Tom will agree with me, its a difficult balancing act to maintain and not always a very pleasant role to maintain. I know eight of the twelve current board members personally from my time working with them under the NUSC banner and would have a hard time believing that they or anyone they had willfully co-opted are acting any other way than genuinelly and with what they percieve to be the best long term interests of the organisation at heart. For that reason I'm prepared to listen to what they have to say at the AGM before I draw any hard and fast conclusions based only on rumours being spread online. If I don't like what I hear then I can consider that when the election comes. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't put their points to the board now, its just a shame that as the board is mandated to represent its members views, legitimate, tangible points being put across may ultimately be ignored if those putting them across have decided against renewing. I personally wouldn't like to see that happen which is why I feel renewing despite any misgivings we might have is currently the best method of shaping the Trust into what we want it to be. Anyway, sorry for rambling on so long, just wanted to clarify who said what and why what was said was said. The comments wern't meant to offend anyone who has decided against renewing but were merely born of frustration over people seemingly not looking past the current setup to see the Trust as an ongoing, developing project that won't necessarily find the right blend in its inaugural year. M