NUST meltdown

[MichaelNUFC 0]

Regarding SW, I agree with Pud. He's actually OK.

 

I don't think that there's a problem with people being involved in the trust and fanzines in itself. The problem lies where you allow your position with one affect the other. NUST have not been communicating with Steve Wraith's fanzine, but has been putting stuff in The Mag. Mark Jensen is editor of The Mag, and that's fine, but with his NUST hat on, he should be sending the same update he puts in The Mag to the other fanzines, and fan sites. NUST is supposed to reach out to all NUFC fans.

 

Is he doing it to preserve The Mag's status? I have no idea, but if he is, I don't know that he'd have much to worry about, because despite my problems with the way NUST is being run, I still think The Mag is really a really good fanzine.

 

Re the board reshuffle, I don't know what to make of it. Mark is still there, and will still have his say on matters, but I know absolutely nothing about Norman Watson or Michael Thewlis.

 

I would suggest that if you are a NUST member and can get along to the AGM on the 31st (which will be tricky for some given the early start), that you do so. There's a lot of questions that need to be answered.

 

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.

Edited January 20, 2011 by MichaelNUFC

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Just trying to read few the last two pages you can see being an onlooker that the whole thing has gone tits up. Mark Jensen or Steve Wraith.....why do the local fan celebs have to be running the show.

 

I would have much more faith in someone like Pud running a supporters club that we can all get behind than this political in-fighting mess that means nothing to most of us.

[MichaelNUFC 0]

Just trying to read few the last two pages you can see being an onlooker that the whole thing has gone tits up. Mark Jensen or Steve Wraith.....why do the local fan celebs have to be running the show.

 

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.

[Howmanheyman 27550]

Lit and Phil at the bottom of Westgate Rd, basically beside the Royal Station Hotel, opposite the Union Rooms. 6pm

Cheers, Tom.

[Tom_NUFC 0]

Yeah, you're right, there was the issue over the content of SW's magazine. I'm not aware of any proviso's he made regarding the promotion of his fanzine. If that's the case, then perhaps it changes things slightly, because you're right that The Mag and True Faith have not been publicised by NUST.

 

Whilst not a regular reader of the various fanzines' Steve wraith has put out (although I did used to read the Number 9 quite a bit) in terms of the 'adult' content, it's not much and what I've seen is no worse than the ads in The Mag for the City Vaults etc. But as I say I'm not a regular reader, so maybe I've just chanced upon tamer issues.

[MichaelNUFC 0]

Yeah, you're right, there was the issue over the content of SW's magazine. I'm not aware of any proviso's he made regarding the promotion of his fanzine. If that's the case, then perhaps it changes things slightly, because you're right that The Mag and True Faith have not been publicised by NUST.

 

Whilst not a regular reader of the various fanzines' Steve wraith has put out (although I did used to read the Number 9 quite a bit) in terms of the 'adult' content, it's not much and what I've seen is no worse than the ads in The Mag for the City Vaults etc. But as I say I'm not a regular reader, so maybe I've just chanced upon tamer issues.

 

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.

Edited January 20, 2011 by MichaelNUFC

[peasepud 59]

From my understanding the promotion aspect is nothing different to what the Mag and True Faith get ie a link on the website. SW sent a link he wanted which involved a Nuts style image of a lass in a Toon top.

 

The offer of a page (it might even have been 2 pages I cant remember fully) was then knocked back with a fairly snotty email using the image as the reason, not the content of the mag itself but the image he wanted as a link. Now I totally agree that the image was not right for the Trusts website but thats no reason to lose valuable advertising space, simply tell them they have to use a different image. There was no attempt at that though.

 

SW has given a fair bit of promotion to the Trust, a slot on the weekly radio show being one, all of which came without any strings or requests for promotion however as soon as it came to the Trust giving the rightful backlink which frankly is nothing more than any site deserves (this one included but we'll come onto that in a minute) they refused.

 

This is where we have a conflict of interest with Mark J, you cannot be the chairman of an organisation such as this and then be involved in decisions which have some, albeit slight, bearing on your private business. When one board member made this observation he was threatened with legal action and is now currently suspended, all for daring to criticize the chair. Thats the bigger issue, that they will happily lose the experience and skills of probably the hardest working member of that board because he said something against the chairman.

 

The Wraith thing however goes far deeper and more sinister than just a backlink, its my understanding that MJ is using his influence to stifle the competition with some pretty underhand tactics and although these do not involve the Trust its not the way the chair should be acting especially when the businesses involved are directly related to the Trust ie fanzines of the football club.

 

As for toontastic, one of the reasons why Bill Corcoran resigned was that he had no knowledge of many of the Trusts actions and was ignored when asking about certain things. This got to the point where he even had to use the "Ask the Trust" feature to try and find out answers! One question he had been asking many times and never got an answer on was why Toontastic had been dropped from that list of "friends". Toontastic has been on there from the start mainly because as a whole this site has been a promoter of the Trust but also because of the amount of work I personally put into it. Its only fair that any site which provides promotion gets its backlink from the Trust, ours was removed one day and no amount of questioning from Bill got an answer why. He finally got one the other day, seemingly I personally requested the links removal which frankly is bollocks.

 

 

This however seems to have moved focus slightly, the argument isnt Jensen or Wraith because thats not even on the table as I believe that SW has no intention of ever running for a position on the board. My original post about Steve W being ok wasnt meant as a promotion of him for the job and as much as I said earlier that I have time for him hes not the person I would vote for given the chance, theres a dozen Newcastle fans way more qualified and better suited.

 

That list doesnt include me however CT, sorry

[Rob W 0]

when you read the last few posts you can see why it's downhill all the way - all about totally non-important issues and unknown people

 

Sounds like too many small interest groups I've seen - all infighting and total loss of the big picture

 

nowt about buying the club

[peasepud 59]

when you read the last few posts you can see why it's downhill all the way - all about totally non-important issues and unknown people

 

Sounds like too many small interest groups I've seen - all infighting and total loss of the big picture

 

nowt about buying the club

 

tbh Rob I think its the opposite, too much focus on hiding away in a room whittling a plan to buy the club without remembering the important stuff ie the members and general view of the organisation. They could have the greatest plan ever to raise the funds, they could have agreement from Ashley that he'll sell however without the trust of the general fanbase then theyve no chance of getting the funds together. Add in petty disagreements and a chairman whos as trustworthy as a Jeremy Kyle guest and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Michael coming on here and telling us all what a thundercunt Steve Wraith can be is all well and good but it's moot. Petty fanzine squables between the third Kray and Mr Newcastle do nothing to explain why the trust has been so autocratically ran and why the fans who have shelled out £10 are viewed with such contempt that when they question the direction of the trust through the only option left available it's closed down for 'maintenance'.

[peasepud 59]

Michael coming on here and telling us all what a thundercunt Steve Wraith can be is all well and good but it's moot. Petty fanzine squables between the third Kray and Mr Newcastle do nothing to explain why the trust has been so autocratically ran and why the fans who have shelled out £10 are viewed with such contempt that when they question the direction of the trust through the only option left available it's closed down for 'maintenance'.

You going to the AGM?

[Ketsbaia 0]

Michael coming on here and telling us all what a thundercunt Steve Wraith can be is all well and good but it's moot. Petty fanzine squables between the third Kray and Mr Newcastle do nothing to explain why the trust has been so autocratically ran and why the fans who have shelled out £10 are viewed with such contempt that when they question the direction of the trust through the only option left available it's closed down for 'maintenance'.

You going to the AGM?

I'm going to make an effort to get over but Jensen and his pals will be chuffed to know that the timing could be quite problematic.

[Guest alex]

I think if they're prepared to lie about something like that, which is fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things, you'd have to worry about being able to trust them in any way whatsover. Shit pun intended.

[MichaelNUFC 0]

Michael coming on here and telling us all what a thundercunt Steve Wraith can be is all well and good but it's moot. Petty fanzine squables between the third Kray and Mr Newcastle do nothing to explain why the trust has been so autocratically ran and why the fans who have shelled out £10 are viewed with such contempt that when they question the direction of the trust through the only option left available it's closed down for 'maintenance'.

 

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?

Edited January 21, 2011 by MichaelNUFC

[Tom_NUFC 0]

I think as members we need to start asking questions in numbers.

 

Can the committee please state exactly why they disagree with the allegations made by Bill Corcoran and Neil Mitchell which led them to resign?

 

Can the committee also please tell us why Steve Hastie has been suspended?

[Christmas Tree 4003]

I think as members we need to start asking questions in numbers.

 

Can the committee please state exactly why they disagree with the allegations made by Bill Corcoran and Neil Mitchell which led them to resign?

 

Can the committee also please tell us why Steve Hastie has been suspended?

 

 

Can the committee please tell us why the haven't bought a pub yet?

[Mac-Toon 1]

The thing about SW is he's quite keen to make a buck out of anything. Not a bad trait but maybe not the best for a supporters trust.

 

In terms of reaching out to the members I think he could do this very well, although the fact he brung a convicted rapist in Mike Tyson over for a dinner talk and Gazza in the weeks following Raoulgate wouldn't be really fitting with a clean cut image.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

I haven't got too much room to talk having quit NUSC last year, but surely if its got any viable future, the first thing it needs to do is decide whether it is going to be a fund racing, glad handing trust or a supporters club.

 

I think there is a great need and desire for Newcastle United to have a supporters club, but not a trust.

 

Start again, small and simple and let it grow. Once you take all the high brow trust nonsense out of it, those involved for status will fade away leaving proper fans to run it.

[peasepud 59]

I think as members we need to start asking questions in numbers.

 

Can the committee please state exactly why they disagree with the allegations made by Bill Corcoran and Neil Mitchell which led them to resign?

 

Can the committee also please tell us why Steve Hastie has been suspended?

 

 

Can the committee please tell us why the haven't bought a pub yet?

Its unlikely they'd get the mortgage, what with the debts n shit.

[Rob W 0]

when you read the last few posts you can see why it's downhill all the way - all about totally non-important issues and unknown people

 

Sounds like too many small interest groups I've seen - all infighting and total loss of the big picture

 

nowt about buying the club

 

tbh Rob I think its the opposite, too much focus on hiding away in a room whittling a plan to buy the club without remembering the important stuff ie the members and general view of the organisation. They could have the greatest plan ever to raise the funds, they could have agreement from Ashley that he'll sell however without the trust of the general fanbase then theyve no chance of getting the funds together. Add in petty disagreements and a chairman whos as trustworthy as a Jeremy Kyle guest and you've got a recipe for disaster.

 

 

Pud

 

I bow to your far greater knowledge of these things but I thought buying the club was the whole point of the exercise?

 

Otherwise its just another supporters club which will have no influence

[peasepud 59]

when you read the last few posts you can see why it's downhill all the way - all about totally non-important issues and unknown people

 

Sounds like too many small interest groups I've seen - all infighting and total loss of the big picture

 

nowt about buying the club

 

tbh Rob I think its the opposite, too much focus on hiding away in a room whittling a plan to buy the club without remembering the important stuff ie the members and general view of the organisation. They could have the greatest plan ever to raise the funds, they could have agreement from Ashley that he'll sell however without the trust of the general fanbase then theyve no chance of getting the funds together. Add in petty disagreements and a chairman whos as trustworthy as a Jeremy Kyle guest and you've got a recipe for disaster.

 

 

Pud

 

I bow to your far greater knowledge of these things but I thought buying the club was the whole point of the exercise?

 

Otherwise its just another supporters club which will have no influence

The concept of a Trust is ultimately to buy the club but there is generally years of groundwork goes into these things.

 

Start a Trust,

get more members,

start building funds

listen to members

get more members

hold meetings

get more members

talk to the members and fans

get more members

get backing of local business

talk to members

raise more funds

listen to members

etc etc etc

 

We started a Supporters Club

did some protesting

calmed it down

talked to members

got more members

raised some funds

became a trust

had a bright idea which we totally fucked up in implementing

got into debt

shut up shop

lost members

lied

ignored members

lost more members

fucked off the good members of the board

continued to chase dream of buying club with idea that is now dead

lost more members

[Rob W 0]

story of my life TBH

[Mac-Toon 1]

With the capacity reported to be 90, do you think they'll have any plans in place for more than that turning up? I'm going to turn up just would like an assurance I'll be able to get in.

[peasepud 59]

With the capacity reported to be 90, do you think they'll have any plans in place for more than that turning up? I'm going to turn up just would like an assurance I'll be able to get in.

I believe the rules are that any member has to be allowed access to the AGM, should be interesting to see what happens then if we exceed capacity.

 

Yet another example of the planning, either they want to limit the numbers which is simply wrong on so many accounts or theyre ignorant of the fact that members want to take part.

[Mac-Toon 1]

With the capacity reported to be 90, do you think they'll have any plans in place for more than that turning up? I'm going to turn up just would like an assurance I'll be able to get in.

I believe the rules are that any member has to be allowed access to the AGM, should be interesting to see what happens then if we exceed capacity.

 

Yet another example of the planning, either they want to limit the numbers which is simply wrong on so many accounts or theyre ignorant of the fact that members want to take part.

I know of 5 myself that are wanting to go so that doesn't bode well if most members know of a similar number.