Guest alex Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Strange venue like, basically holding it in a library that most people will never have been to before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Strange venue like, basically holding it in a library that most people will never have been to before. its as if they dont want people to turn up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 how are they in debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 how are they in debt? Spent more money than they had coming in at a guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNUFC 0 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) how are they in debt? 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. Edited January 25, 2011 by MichaelNUFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The thing is though every member has a right to attend the AGM and to therefore book a room that holds a maximum of 6% of the membership is a folly. What if 120 turn up? Will we have to abandon the meeting? Obviously we can't go booking a room for 1500 but it would be prudent to book one that can accomodate all the local based adult members. As for the debt, its very real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom_NUFC 0 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I went down and some of the 'revelations' weren't very suprising. I'll keep things brief. The plus sides are that a lot of the initiatives are very good. The Junior Trust, Local Achievers, supporting local kids teams like Wsetgate Juniors,montague, forging links with Wallsend Boys - all good stuff, but admitedly a small part of what a trust is about. Encouragingly there will be another members meeting in March, mainly to discuss the results of a recent survey. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction to regular meetings. The point was made that the timing if the AGM was bad. The boards response was that they are volunteers doing this in their own time - fair enough but you still have to meet the needs of the members and they also mentioned expenses of venue hire. They also mentioned the possibility of further meetings taking place on a matchday morning. The question was asked if the Irish club could be used free of charge (which used to be the case). Ex committee member Bill Corcoran (involved in the Irish Club) said yes. So that should go a long way to resolving future probs and expenses. Bill's resignation was mentioned. Why did the NUST forum go down shortly after Bill posted his statement and people gad started asking what was happening, and why was it down for so long? Tony Stephenson replied that it was down for a while because the bloke who does the site was on holiday. Pud pointed out that the site didn't fail, it went to the 'down for maintenance' message. Tony said this was because as soon as the site failed he was on the phone to the company who do the site and the 'other' bloke said he'd just put that up because he didn't know how to fix it. Again Pud responded that the site didn't fail and went straight from working to the essential maintenace message in the space of 10 seconds. I don't think we got an explanation on this from Tony. The accounts to 31st Aug 2010 are interesting. An income of £21,808. Expenditure of £36,660. Meaning a defecit of £14,852. This was then reduced to £11,412 due to funds transferred from the original supporters club to the trust following the members vote to convert to trust status. The main recent for the defecit being funds owed to NCJ Media (Chronicle & Journal) for the Yes We Can campaign, amounting to £9,000 with an agreement to repay this by 31 March 2011. If the trust managed to launch a succesful scheme to raise funds through personal pensions with a view to purchasing a share or all of NUFC, a further £5,000 would be paid to NCJ Media. At this point there was a discussion over what successful entails. Successful means finding a scheme to raise money that works, NOT a succesful outcome to purchasing some or all of NUFC. There is also a legal bill from Watson Burton solicitors currently disputed by the board 'as the services supplied were not complete due to Watson Burton withdrawing their services due to a conflict of interest.' The current state of play us that 'thanks to some extremely succesful fund raising' the debt to NCJ Nedia now stands at £2,000. The trust is on course to clear the debt and also satisy the Watson Burton position, should the board be unsuccessful in their dispute. The board of now 'put in a strict policy with regards to expenditure to ensure that this situation is not repeated'. That's the main points I think. Pud and maybe one or two others from the massive two figure crowd (18) may well have their own points to add. I should also add that this is not the minutes or anything like the full preceedings. The meeting did not occur in the order I have written. I have written this way purely for ease and from memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I went down and some of the 'revelations' weren't very suprising.I'll keep things brief. The plus sides are that a lot of the initiatives are very good. The Junior Trust, Local Achievers, supporting local kids teams like Wsetgate Juniors,montague, forging links with Wallsend Boys - all good stuff, but admitedly a small part of what a trust is about. Encouragingly there will be another members meeting in March, mainly to discuss the results of a recent survey. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction to regular meetings. The point was made that the timing if the AGM was bad. The boards response was that they are volunteers doing this in their own time - fair enough but you still have to meet the needs of the members and they also mentioned expenses of venue hire. They also mentioned the possibility of further meetings taking place on a matchday morning. The question was asked if the Irish club could be used free of charge (which used to be the case). Ex committee member Bill Corcoran (involved in the Irish Club) said yes. So that should go a long way to resolving future probs and expenses. Bill's resignation was mentioned. Why did the NUST forum go down shortly after Bill posted his statement and people gad started asking what was happening, and why was it down for so long? Tony Stephenson replied that it was down for a while because the bloke who does the site was on holiday. Pud pointed out that the site didn't fail, it went to the 'down for maintenance' message. Tony said this was because as soon as the site failed he was on the phone to the company who do the site and the 'other' bloke said he'd just put that up because he didn't know how to fix it. Again Pud responded that the site didn't fail and went straight from working to the essential maintenace message in the space of 10 seconds. I don't think we got an explanation on this from Tony. The accounts to 31st Aug 2010 are interesting. An income of £21,808. Expenditure of £36,660. Meaning a defecit of £14,852. This was then reduced to £11,412 due to funds transferred from the original supporters club to the trust following the members vote to convert to trust status. The main recent for the defecit being funds owed to NCJ Media (Chronicle & Journal) for the Yes We Can campaign, amounting to £9,000 with an agreement to repay this by 31 March 2011. If the trust managed to launch a succesful scheme to raise funds through personal pensions with a view to purchasing a share or all of NUFC, a further £5,000 would be paid to NCJ Media. At this point there was a discussion over what successful entails. Successful means finding a scheme to raise money that works, NOT a succesful outcome to purchasing some or all of NUFC. There is also a legal bill from Watson Burton solicitors currently disputed by the board 'as the services supplied were not complete due to Watson Burton withdrawing their services due to a conflict of interest.' The current state of play us that 'thanks to some extremely succesful fund raising' the debt to NCJ Nedia now stands at £2,000. The trust is on course to clear the debt and also satisy the Watson Burton position, should the board be unsuccessful in their dispute. The board of now 'put in a strict policy with regards to expenditure to ensure that this situation is not repeated'. That's the main points I think. Pud and maybe one or two others from the massive two figure crowd (18) may well have their own points to add. I should also add that this is not the minutes or anything like the full preceedings. The meeting did not occur in the order I have written. I have written this way purely for ease and from memory. No pub then? Are you saying only 18 people turned up?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 If they get themselves into debt trying to organise an advertising campaign who the fuck is going to let them loose on their pension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I went down and some of the 'revelations' weren't very suprising.I'll keep things brief. The plus sides are that a lot of the initiatives are very good. The Junior Trust, Local Achievers, supporting local kids teams like Wsetgate Juniors,montague, forging links with Wallsend Boys - all good stuff, but admitedly a small part of what a trust is about. Encouragingly there will be another members meeting in March, mainly to discuss the results of a recent survey. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction to regular meetings. The point was made that the timing if the AGM was bad. The boards response was that they are volunteers doing this in their own time - fair enough but you still have to meet the needs of the members and they also mentioned expenses of venue hire. They also mentioned the possibility of further meetings taking place on a matchday morning. The question was asked if the Irish club could be used free of charge (which used to be the case). Ex committee member Bill Corcoran (involved in the Irish Club) said yes. So that should go a long way to resolving future probs and expenses. Bill's resignation was mentioned. Why did the NUST forum go down shortly after Bill posted his statement and people gad started asking what was happening, and why was it down for so long? Tony Stephenson replied that it was down for a while because the bloke who does the site was on holiday. Pud pointed out that the site didn't fail, it went to the 'down for maintenance' message. Tony said this was because as soon as the site failed he was on the phone to the company who do the site and the 'other' bloke said he'd just put that up because he didn't know how to fix it. Again Pud responded that the site didn't fail and went straight from working to the essential maintenace message in the space of 10 seconds. I don't think we got an explanation on this from Tony. The accounts to 31st Aug 2010 are interesting. An income of £21,808. Expenditure of £36,660. Meaning a defecit of £14,852. This was then reduced to £11,412 due to funds transferred from the original supporters club to the trust following the members vote to convert to trust status. The main recent for the defecit being funds owed to NCJ Media (Chronicle & Journal) for the Yes We Can campaign, amounting to £9,000 with an agreement to repay this by 31 March 2011. If the trust managed to launch a succesful scheme to raise funds through personal pensions with a view to purchasing a share or all of NUFC, a further £5,000 would be paid to NCJ Media. At this point there was a discussion over what successful entails. Successful means finding a scheme to raise money that works, NOT a succesful outcome to purchasing some or all of NUFC. There is also a legal bill from Watson Burton solicitors currently disputed by the board 'as the services supplied were not complete due to Watson Burton withdrawing their services due to a conflict of interest.' The current state of play us that 'thanks to some extremely succesful fund raising' the debt to NCJ Nedia now stands at £2,000. The trust is on course to clear the debt and also satisy the Watson Burton position, should the board be unsuccessful in their dispute. The board of now 'put in a strict policy with regards to expenditure to ensure that this situation is not repeated'. That's the main points I think. Pud and maybe one or two others from the massive two figure crowd (18) may well have their own points to add. I should also add that this is not the minutes or anything like the full preceedings. The meeting did not occur in the order I have written. I have written this way purely for ease and from memory. No pub then? Are you saying only 18 people turned up?????????? He sure is, Ill add to this with my views in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26339 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Seriously, 18 people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Seriously, 18 people? 6pm transfer deadline day in a hard to find building in town. And they looked surprised when I questioned their reasons..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26339 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 So there are nearly as many committee members as there were attendees tonight? Clearly you guys are fighting a losing battle with regards reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNUFC 0 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited February 1, 2011 by MichaelNUFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26339 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Regardless of Time, regardless of venue, a turnout of 18 people for something like this is a fucking disgrace. 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. As an OOT I'm not in a position to judge anyone. They say that the public get the government they deserve, maybe that's also true for football fans. Edited February 1, 2011 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin 1 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 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. Wey aye man! I didn't do anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3603 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 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. Nobody turned up because the whole thing is a fucking joke that is never going to achieve anything. Nice strop though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 If the trust board is as hopelessly insular as people say it is, then little wonder few people are interested in attending the AGM. Maybe they've spent so long working on the legal intricancies and mechanics of the trust that they haven't noticed it's died on its arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 If the trust board is as hopelessly insular as people say it is, then little wonder few people are interested in attending the AGM. Maybe they've spent so long working on the legal intricancies and mechanics of the trust that they haven't noticed it's died on its arse. That is the crux of it but I understand why Michael got worked up over it. At the end of the day we have 1,100+ actual paying members of which 18 made it to the AGM, many of those members are OOT so fair enough but out of at least 600 locals we have 18 who managed to turn up. 18 people who care enough about how the Trust is ran and the future of the only vehicle we can have for fans ownership. Allegedly 5000 people replied to their survey, 65% of which said they would invest at least £5000 in any club purchase, are we seriously going to believe that they will stick their hand in the pocket when we couldnt manage to get a higher turnout than 1.6% of the membership to turn up to the Annual Meeting? I slated the choice of venue and time/date because I believe it was ridiculous and excluded many members from getting there on time however even at a better time Id be surprised if we would have doubled the attendees. Anyway thats my rant over. The meeting was, as expected a bit of a farce. New chairman Norman gave his speech which gloated about how we had managed to gain 75 new members in the last month including 10 new lifetime memberships. I would love to see the background to this, what in the last month has made 75 people think "thats an organisation I want to be part of"? The only times its been mentioned has been to slate it for its lack of doing anything other than piss off its members. What he failed to include in that little stat was we'd lost 50% of the members in the preceeding 4 months. He went on to say how we had a debt from YWC of £9000 owing to the Chronicle but due to some "exceptional fundraising" we had paid off £7000 so far and had agreement to pay the remaining by end of March. The accounts however only showed £2000 being raised by fundraising, when questioned on this he admitted the other £5k had been paid for with members subscriptions. The subject of resignations and suspensions came up and was basically brushed under the carpet, members have a right to know why the people they elected are not happy with the state of things and have a basic right as members to question that and receive honest answers. When tackled about how the members forum had been taken down for maintenance I was given a fob off answer about it falling over and the person responsible for the site not being in the country for two weeks! Something which I have on good authority is absolute bollocks but just shows the contempt in which the board holds its members. The worst bit about the whole evening though was watching peoples faces, 2 members of the committee sneered their way through that meeting, replying to members questions with contempt and deriding many of the views put forward. Thats not how you meet with your membership and its not how you deal with the very people who voted you in there in the first place. I didnt even get onto the subject of toontastic and its removal from the "friends" list, according to the person responsible, firstly I requested it and then following a backtrack gave the statement "its supporters and sponsors so why would it be on there in the first place?" this site has done more to promote the Trust than any other, thats the simple fact and for all the work I personally put in (as well as that of Tom_NUFC and the other 3 members of the interim board who were members here) it should have been our "reward" just as the Mag, True Faith and nufc.com get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolly Potter MD 0 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) As an interested observer it's disappointing hearing about the logistics of the AGM [time, place, accessiblity] and that it possibly excluded much of the 'average joe' membership, those lads who hum & ha about attending when factoring work commitments and the like. PP, given that the Trust's movement has stalled to understatedly put it, was this meeting set-up in a way as an effective means of escaping any degree of largescale [more than bloody 18 members] criticism of the membership? Ashley used to set up his early Sports Direct AGM's in such a way [ie. time, place etc], it was an often criticised by observers, mom & dad shareholders with a vested financial interest & mutual commentators alike. Disappointing re: the elitist & insular nature of the Trust's current managment. Edited February 1, 2011 by Year Zero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34451 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 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. Nobody turned up because the whole thing is a fucking joke that is never going to achieve anything. Nice strop though Exactly. People have given up on the Trust as a waste of time. Cos that's exactly what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 exactly - our local allotments Club get twice as many members turn up to the AGM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38757 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Shame, but NUST. Must be gutting to the likes of Pud, Tom_Nufc etc who actively participated in it's setting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now