You can get fixated by an idea. Maybe I have become fixated by the idea that the Supporters Trust in it's present form is vital to the the growth now and in the future of a successful Newport County by both providing a source of funding and helping to place the club in the heart of the community that is the fan base but also the wider community.

I picked up on the idea that the Trust might be a 'toxic brand' from a post by 'Stow Hill Sid' on 'allthingscounty'. Chatgpt describes a toxic brand as follows “ A toxic brand refers to a brand that has become associated with negative perceptions, controversies, or behaviours, which significantly tarnish its reputation......” I'm going to leave you to think about whether recent events at the Trust has lead to any of those associations. In my own view and irrespective of cause or blame, I believe those associations have been made.

So what impacts might the Trust being a 'toxic brand' have had.? It is possible that you can get a one sided view from social media posts but I think these are common threads that indicate that trust members might be less than happy with the brand. They include questioning what is the continued purpose of the Trust, demanding the wholesale resignation of current directors, a feeling that the Trust does not represent all of the fans, the Trust is not attracting a more diverse membership or leadership and in a general sense that the Trust has let them down.

You also have to look at whether that situation is redeemable. The Board could argue with some justification that they have recognised those negative aspects and are seeking to take steps in dealing with them.

So, my thought, is, if it is accepted that the Trust may be a 'toxic brand' and is not redeemable, should we ditch the Trust and create something different from scratch that retains the best points of the Trust but also allows a 'new start' with a wider and possibly better remit? Against that the disentangling of the relationship at all levels between the Trust and the County might be a complex and difficult one. My thinking has not gone as far as what a new set up might be but I know that not all fan support is based on our model.

What do others think?

I have had similar thoughts about a fresh start. If control of the club is the long term aim and while ultimately transfer of Huw's 52% would trump any other holding, the biggest stumbling block for me, is the Trust's ownership of club shares.

Yes I believe it has become a 'toxic brand'. I think without fundamental reform the Trust membership will decline substantially. And I cannot see fundamental change happening at the SGM. The 'cabal' that drove the club almost to ruin (again) will want to ensure their secrets remain. Although they claim they wish to resign, sufficient numbers will be 'forced' to remain for the foreseeable after the SGM.

So same people, same contempt for those who choose to continue with their contributions, same secrecy, same old sh1t...

Amberexile wrote: April 11th, 2024, 1:06 pm I have had similar thoughts about a fresh start. If control of the club is the long term aim and while ultimately transfer of Huw's 52% would trump any other holding, the biggest stumbling block for me, is the Trust's ownership of club shares.

There may be a few ways around that. Firstly, I suppose the Trust could exist in 'rump' form and still hold the shares. Secondly, if so minded, the Trust could sell the shares to any alternative organisation. Thirdly, if the alternative organisation was set up as a charity and the Trust was dissolved, then the Trust could lawfully pass the shares to the charity.

Amberexile wrote: April 11th, 2024, 1:06 pm I have had similar thoughts about a fresh start. If control of the club is the long term aim and while ultimately transfer of Huw's 52% would trump any other holding, the biggest stumbling block for me, is the Trust's ownership of club shares.

"If control of the club is the long term aim...". We had control of the club. We gave it away. What would be the point of controlling it again - just to give it away again?

It is not the Trust as a concept that is toxic, but the Directors who lied, deceived, and treated the membership like mushrooms. With trust having been completely lost in the eyes of many, it is difficult to see a way back.

Chris Davis wrote: April 11th, 2024, 2:37 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 11th, 2024, 1:06 pm I have had similar thoughts about a fresh start. If control of the club is the long term aim and while ultimately transfer of Huw's 52% would trump any other holding, the biggest stumbling block for me, is the Trust's ownership of club shares.

There may be a few ways around that. Firstly, I suppose the Trust could exist in 'rump' form and still hold the shares. Secondly, if so minded, the Trust could sell the shares to any alternative organisation. Thirdly, if the alternative organisation was set up as a charity and the Trust was dissolved, then the Trust could lawfully pass the shares to the charity.

Unfortunately, I think it more likely that we would end up with two Trusts with some level of acrimony between them.

Stow Hill Sid wrote: April 11th, 2024, 3:48 pm

Amberexile wrote: April 11th, 2024, 1:06 pm I have had similar thoughts about a fresh start. If control of the club is the long term aim and while ultimately transfer of Huw's 52% would trump any other holding, the biggest stumbling block for me, is the Trust's ownership of club shares.

"If control of the club is the long term aim...". We had control of the club. We gave it away. What would be the point of controlling it again - just to give it away again?

It seems to be HJs wish to sort out the mess created by the Trust run board and hand the club back into supporter control. Taking hin at his word, a fans run club with HJ as an executive consultant could be an interesting prospect in the future once the club is back on an even keel.