Jump to content

UtdForNewcastle


Craig
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pretty sure this lad/these lads are from N-O so you may just want to disregard everything they have done :icon_lol:

They're getting slagged to fuck by the usual suspects over there. They're one of ours :icon_lol:

 

 

I haven't even read it :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably is MF but fair play to him for getting something done. Gives an opportunity to feed stuff back as well even if we are sceptical as to whether the club will listen.

Absolutely, if I sounded critical of this bloke/group it wasn't meant to be.

Just makes you wonder, if UtdForNewcastle can arrange discussion with club reps, why can't other groups?

 

I know what you're getting at here but I believe that this is one of the areas where the Trust arn't 100% to blame. While its true that they did themselves no favours when they snubbed Llambias at the outset of the 'Yes we can' campaign (rightfully as they had nothing to show at that stage but wrongly in the language they used to do so) it has since become apparent that the club, or rather Llambias, wants to see the Trust disolved. The club is aware of and indeed is actively encouraging other fan groups to disassociate themselves from the Supporters Trust. This is actually happening. That to me tells me that they are fearful, not perhaps of the less than stellar way that the Trust has been run in the past year, but of the power that the Supporters Trust movement in general is building within the game and where it might one day lead with the right people behind it.

 

I'd personally welcome an umbrella fans organisation that incorporates the political groups such as NUST, supporters groups such as the mooted replacement for NUSC, and single issue protest groups that emerge from time to time...indeed I know one lad previously associated with the Trust who is still very keen to make this happen. However its important that any such group be vigilant over its relationship with the club and make sure that it isn't going to become 'fans liaison committee' MkII. I'm not for a second suggesting that this is what is happening with UFN and, indeed, I'm impressed with what information they have gotten out of the club (presumably from talks with Simon Estland - who is fairly open to speaking to supporters and doesn't, to my knowledge, require Steve Wraith as some sort of go-between) but the knowledge that the club is looking for a new patsy should always be preying on their minds and the minds of anybody seemingly welcomed in by this regime.

 

Indeed should we qualify for Europe in forthcoming seasons, it will be mandatory to have at least one such person occupying the role of 'Supporter Liaison Officer'

 

http://www.nust.org.uk/club-fan-links-in-u...ensing-criteria.

 

It's also possible that the club are using meetings such as the one with UFN to satisfy Premier League regulations that state that they must have consultations with their supporter base. This is what the tea and creamcakes of the supporters panel used to satisfy but as that was abolished following our relegation, there have been questions raised (as they were at the NUST AGM) about whether or not the club is in breach of Premier League guidelines by not reinstating it after our promotion. The general feeling was that they were. Perhaps the occasional meeting with groups like UFN and the lads from the singing section mean that they are now satisfying this criteria. Who can say?

Edited by MichaelNUFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure this lad/these lads are from N-O so you may just want to disregard everything they have done :icon_lol:

They're getting slagged to fuck by the usual suspects over there. They're one of ours :icon_lol:

 

 

I haven't even read it :D

The spastics are being hypercritical and trying to pour cold water on what they've achieved so far. Not entirely surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this earlier today on a twitter link.

 

I assumed initially they were obviously some fanboy operation that were being given there time in an effort to portray the club's board in a positive light.

 

However, having read their summary of the interview, among other things, I don't think they are anywhere near that foolish, they seem genuinely interested and informed on the ongoing operation of the club.

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the club heirarchy see them as anything more than a publicity tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it undeniable that NUST has failed, for whatever reason (and I know who most wise heads are justifiably blaming). If United For Change are a more radical, active, proactive & provocative group, then I'm with them all the way. Those I know who are involved are lifelong Mags of unquestionable morals & selfless, ego free devotion to our club.

 

They deserve our support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it undeniable that NUST has failed, for whatever reason (and I know who most wise heads are justifiably blaming). If United For Change are a more radical, active, proactive & provocative group, then I'm with them all the way. Those I know who are involved are lifelong Mags of unquestionable morals & selfless, ego free devotion to our club.

 

They deserve our support.

 

From what I can see the lads from United for Newcastle have a good relationship with the Trust, hence why the latter is promoting the formers petition and the former is thanking the latter on its official facebook page for helping them.

 

Perhaps the new group is sensible enough to understand that there is room for both groups to co-exist (as I've said before I think their's room for three: The Trust, a supporters club and a protest group, none of which need to be at the others throats).

 

The recent criticism of the Trust, as I understand it, hasn't been to do with it not being "radical and provocative" but rather about its poor communication, in-fighting and lack of media prescence, areas that have shown green shoots of improvement in the past few weeks since the new chair took over.

 

I'd be happy for a protest group to emerge and would back one if it did, but I don't expect the Trust to be that group, least of all because, aside from the fact that this isn't what a trust is supposed to be doing, in a legal sense it's also completely unfeasible for any established body with accountable people behind it to do any effective or meaningful protesting without massive political and legal interference to what they could achieve.

 

Radical, provocative protest groups are best kept underground, else they face being neutered at all levels and ultimately left impotent as to what they can achieve.

Edited by MichaelNUFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it undeniable that NUST has failed, for whatever reason (and I know who most wise heads are justifiably blaming). If United For Change are a more radical, active, proactive & provocative group, then I'm with them all the way. Those I know who are involved are lifelong Mags of unquestionable morals & selfless, ego free devotion to our club.

 

They deserve our support.

 

From what I can see the lads from United for Newcastle have a good relationship with the Trust, hence why the latter is promoting the formers petition and the former is thanking the latter on its official facebook page for helping them.

 

Perhaps the new group is sensible enough to understand that there is room for both groups to co-exist (as I've said before I think their's room for three: The Trust, a supporters club and a protest group, none of which need to be at the others throats).

 

The recent criticism of the Trust, as I understand it, hasn't been to do with it not being "radical and provocative" but rather about its poor communication, in-fighting and lack of media prescence, areas that have shown green shoots of improvement in the past few weeks since the new chair took over.

 

I'd be happy for a protest group to emerge and would back one if it did, but I don't expect the Trust to be that group, least of all because, aside from the fact that this isn't what a trust is supposed to be doing, in a legal sense it's also completely unfeasible for any established body with accountable people behind it to do any effective or meaningful protesting without massive political and legal interference to what they could achieve.

 

Radical, provocative protest groups are best kept underground, else they face being neutered at all levels and ultimately left impotent as to what they can achieve.

 

 

I'll take your word for the first two paragraphs as I've not got time to check up on this.

 

Until about a fortnight ago, I think I would have burst out laughing at your third point, but I think I agree with you. NUST, since Norman assumed the chair, appears to be trying to right the wrongs of the previous 9 months by actually talking to members and potential members, lapsed or otherwise. While the NUST has been debased and devalued by the loss of Bill, Neil and Steve from the board, I think the replacement of Mark Jensen, whose stewardship was been desperately poor, weak and constantly accused of being a conflict of interests, has saved NUST's bacon. Admittedly the conduct of a close acolyte of the former chair at the AGM was an atrocious scar on NUST's soul, but hopefully the new chair can minimise the influence of those happy to see membership dwindle so alarmingly.

 

If you would wish for NUST to co-exist with a protest group, I urge you to read the article "Tweeting In A Pardew Wonderland" in "Toon Talk" issue 4, which is available on line here http://payaso-del-mierda.blogspot.com/2011...wonderland.html as it suggests pretty much the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi guys,

 

As a co-founder of United For Newcastle, I'd like to introduce ourselves on here, if you don't mind.

 

Following the sacking of Chris Hughton we took it upon themselves to organise a peaceful protest outside St James' Park. Following regional and national media coverage, word spread fast of the protest which by in large was a success - as it gave fans the opportunity to peacefully vent some of their frustration and anger towards Mike Ashley in an entirely non-violent way.

 

Since the turn of the year, we have tried to developed what was a protest group into the upcoming supporter group for Newcastle United fans - focussing on the direction that the club is taking and urging communication between the club and fans.

 

Following the news that the club were to break up Level 7 of Leazes Corner, we've had talks with the club regarding the relocation of the singing section, and have since set up a petition.

 

It has around 2,900 signatures so far, we were meant be showing it to the club yesterday but something came up, so we are currently rescheduling.

 

The Head of Customer Operations has got a lot of time for us, and we're hoping that by having ongoing dialogue with the club, May (which was when the club announced the singing section plans in 2008) could be a realistic target for this to be finalised.

 

If you have any questions for me, please ask.

 

Please sign the petition here and share it with others:

 

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43076.html

 

Also, please feel free to visit us:

On Facebook - www.facebook.com/unitedfornewcastle

And on Twitter - www.twitter.com/utdfornewcastle

 

Cheers.

Edited by Dirty Boots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the turn of the year, we have tried to developed what was a protest group into the upcoming supporter group for Newcastle United fans - focussing on the direction that the club is taking and urging communication between the club and fans.

Interested to hear more about this bit like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the turn of the year, we have tried to developed what was a protest group into the upcoming supporter group for Newcastle United fans - focussing on the direction that the club is taking and urging communication between the club and fans.

Interested to hear more about this bit like.

 

Fire away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the turn of the year, we have tried to developed what was a protest group into the upcoming supporter group for Newcastle United fans - focussing on the direction that the club is taking and urging communication between the club and fans.

Interested to hear more about this bit like.

 

Fire away.

 

I thought I had? :lol:

 

Im interested to know whats meant by that statement, are you seeing U4N as becoming the supporters club/ voice of the fans? or am I reading it wrong?

 

 

and yes, on twitter I am pjwhitfield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the turn of the year, we have tried to developed what was a protest group into the upcoming supporter group for Newcastle United fans - focussing on the direction that the club is taking and urging communication between the club and fans.

Interested to hear more about this bit like.

 

Fire away.

 

I thought I had? :lol:

 

Im interested to know whats meant by that statement, are you seeing U4N as becoming the supporters club/ voice of the fans? or am I reading it wrong?

 

and yes, on twitter I am pjwhitfield

 

Correct. We don't want to be considered to be a middle-man between the club and supporters, but we feel that we can be a forum for issues amongst the fans which we can then take to the club, which is what we did in our last meeting with Simon Esland.

 

Though the aim of that meeting was first and foremost to discuss the new seating arrangements, we also asked our followers to suggest questions that they wanted us to discuss with the club. So in that sense, I suppose we are trying to be the voice of the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you dont support the idea of a Supporters Association then?

 

A single "voice of the fans" will never work, thats been proven on more than one occasion, especially if that voice starts from protest (as perfectly proven by NUSC).

 

The only way forward is for a collective of groups/ fanzines/ websites etc which never looks to take forward one particular "political agenda" but has enough clout and contacts to agree a strategy when required and move things forward when they're needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you dont support the idea of a Supporters Association then?

 

A single "voice of the fans" will never work, thats been proven on more than one occasion, especially if that voice starts from protest (as perfectly proven by NUSC).

 

The only way forward is for a collective of groups/ fanzines/ websites etc which never looks to take forward one particular "political agenda" but has enough clout and contacts to agree a strategy when required and move things forward when they're needed.

 

You sound like Steve. I completely agree though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We gleaned the following points from our first meeting:

 

- The club has guaranteed us they will, at very least, look into relocating the singing section in another part of the stadium, likely Leazes but they'll look at the entire situation.

- The increased away tickets are indeed due to having to comply with Premier League regulations, the minimum they can offer being 3,000. The reason the maximum away capacity is now 4,000 is simply for evening matches where it's on TV, and they feel they won't sell the stadium out, so they can offer more to away fans and hopefully make more money. In games like the Sunderland matches, they'll definitely not be given to the away team.

- The Carroll money will be reinvested, and the club are looking for more Tiote type players. Quality players that they can get for reasonable prices. Just because they have a lot of money, does not mean they'll splash out over the odds for someone. Everyone in the club is aware that they are light, and strikers are a priority. They've also pin-pointed several areas that need cover, and will attempt to acquire decent cover in the summer. They accept that they need better players in order to push for Europe.

- The club's ambition is to steadily improve. They want success on the pitch, but won't bankrupt to do it. The apparent stinginess is simply Ashley's way of doing things. The club now breaks even every month, and isn't taking loans out. They want to be in good shape for the UEFA rules on finances for when they do get back into Europe. Wherever they finish this year, next year they will aim to better it.

- Much of the club's investment goes on behind the scenes. For instance, apparently they are going to (or have) under-soil heated the training ground for the winter.

 

- The club have offered Enrique a new deal, and will sit down with him to discuss. Whether he wants to sign or not is up to him. They have a wage structure, with a cap which they wouldn't confirm the amount of. Enrique's deal will be within that structure, but 'fair' for the structure that's in place.

- The club confirm they are not a selling club, but as with any football club, if crazy money is offered (like for Carroll) then they will consider it. The only other circumstance in which they'll sell is if the player says they want to go. They don't want anyone who doesn't want to play for the shirt.

- The club have confirmed they want to hold on to the likes of Barton, Coloccini, Enrique and Tiote, but admit it will be a difficult summer. The club suggested that it's a testament to their progress that people actually want to sign their players now, unlike during the relegation season when half the team wouldn't have been touched by another club.

- The club's ambition is steady, sustainable progress that aims for Europe.

 

- The club insist the 10-year season ticket is a good deal, with the option to opt out at any time. There is no catch. The club has updated their ticketing system so all customers can now pay with direct debit which wasn't possible before due to staff limitations and technical limitations. Even if the club reaches the Champions League in five years, those prices will be the same under the deal.

 

- The club accept their communication has been, at times, insufficient, and we suggested they look to put more information on the official club site. The club said they gave lots of information to newspapers and media, but accepted that they could not control if it was published. We suggested that in order to rebuild trust with the fan base, they should go above and beyond the call of duty for a while, in order to rebuild that support through transparency and integrity. The club said there would still be situations they would not comment on, ie. Carroll leaving, since they have their stance and won't get drawn into an argument on it.

 

- The club accepts that mistakes have been made in the past, and says that mistakes are still likely to be made in the future. But that is human error, and everyone in the club has one aim: success on the pitch, and that is the long-term goal.

 

- With regards to SportsDirect sponsorship, the club insist that money does go to the club from SportsDirect, and since Ashley does not own SD but is merely a majority shareholder, it is not simply a case of moving money from one pocket to another. The club does benefit.

- The advertising on the Gallowgate roof and the dug-out seats is to advertise the stadium's potential for advertisers. When pressed for an example of when any of those packages have actually been sold to another company, they did not have one.

- The money that comes in from this advertising is all used to keep the club breaking even financially.

 

It was a productive meeting, with several points put across effectively from both sides. Sadly, the club would not confirm they would take a strategy to communicate more effectively with any great passion, however they did promise to attempt to relocate the singing section rather than shut it down.

 

It will be interesting to see how much of this is contradicted in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers for the update. Nowt new there, but at least there's open dialogue.

 

- The advertising on the Gallowgate roof and the dug-out seats is to advertise the stadium's potential for advertisers. When pressed for an example of when any of those packages have actually been sold to another company, they did not have one.

 

Chelsea also have had trouble selling the name of their ground after not 1 serious offer since November 2009 when the announcement was made.

 

link to original story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increased away tickets are indeed due to having to comply with Premier League regulations, the minimum they can offer being 3,000. The reason the maximum away capacity is now 4,000 is simply for evening matches where it's on TV, and they feel they won't sell the stadium out, so they can offer more to away fans and hopefully make more money. In games like the Sunderland matches, they'll definitely not be given to the away team.

 

I don't get that bit as normally at night matches the away fans normally bring up about half compared to 3pm, unless it's 5:15 KO's but even that's only once a season or summit.

 

Fair enough if the extra space gets offered to cash turnstiles but to me that's not what the quote implies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Your Name Here
The increased away tickets are indeed due to having to comply with Premier League regulations, the minimum they can offer being 3,000. The reason the maximum away capacity is now 4,000 is simply for evening matches where it's on TV, and they feel they won't sell the stadium out, so they can offer more to away fans and hopefully make more money. In games like the Sunderland matches, they'll definitely not be given to the away team.

 

I don't get that bit as normally at night matches the away fans normally bring up about half compared to 3pm, unless it's 5:15 KO's but even that's only once a season or summit.

 

Fair enough if the extra space gets offered to cash turnstiles but to me that's not what the quote implies.

True

 

“Barclays Premier League rules stipulate that away clubs must receive a minimum of 3,000 tickets for all matches”

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...l#ixzz1IC57dbzB

 

Have UFC contacted the PL to verify what the rule on away ticket allocations actually is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.