"....To me trust membership simply doesn't need to compete with the club, or blame, it just needs to assist...."

This is what I have put in my 'Draft Agenda for the Trust", which I have forwarded to them:

"2. Working in a two-way partnership with the AFC to support directly and indirectly the Vision and aims of both bodies.

Why? Although both bodies may work in different ways to achieve it, they both want the same outcome: a successful Newport County AFC. "

Chris Davis wrote: February 17th, 2024, 11:13 am "....To me trust membership simply doesn't need to compete with the club, or blame, it just needs to assist...."

This is what I have put in my 'Draft Agenda for the Trust", which I have forwarded to them:

"2. Working in a two-way partnership with the AFC to support directly and indirectly the Vision and aims of both bodies.

Why? Although both bodies may work in different ways to achieve it, they both want the same outcome: a successful Newport County AFC. "

Well said.

Chris Davis wrote: February 17th, 2024, 11:13 am "....To me trust membership simply doesn't need to compete with the club, or blame, it just needs to assist...."

This is what I have put in my 'Draft Agenda for the Trust", which I have forwarded to them:

"2. Working in a two-way partnership with the AFC to support directly and indirectly the Vision and aims of both bodies.

Why? Although both bodies may work in different ways to achieve it, they both want the same outcome: a successful Newport County AFC. "

Regarding the trust questionnaire, what do we think will be at the forefront of those trust members of those who had to queue longer that they expected, or want to have a role to fill within a new Trust?

Do we expect them to consider that it might be in their and the clubs interests to look at whether trust benefits are still suitable?

Do we expect them to ask HJ if the share transfer document contains claw back terms, as he was gifted them?

Do they even want the club run as a business? I ask because I note that the marquee seems to have been deemed less of a priority for HJ on match days. I would say that is because Rugby season tickets are cheap and there are less home games, so spend elsewhere is a bigger priority to the Rugby than the County. To me that is a business decision that wouldn't have got past the trust.

I would expect the survey to cover these three main areas - because that's what the Trust said would be the subject of consultation:

1. How the Trust should be run in the future. (I don't know if this includes whether the Trust should be run at all but I doubt it!).

2. How we should elect two new directors for the board of the football club and what we should expect of them;

3. How the Trust can represent the interests of supporters and best support the club under the new ownership model.

I am unconvinced that a survey/questionnaire alone will provide any great insights into any of the above. I am equally unconvinced that there is a value to doing it at all. This is mainly because there are no 'pat' answers to any of the three questions. Further, there may be so many widely different and unevidenced suggestions that the responses become meaningless. Myself, I think I would have liked to have a seen a call for interested members to join a small 'focus group' for each of the three above. These groups could 'hammer out' a series of more meaningful questions that could have been put in the survey. The 'trick' will be to distil what comes out of the overall consultation exercise into meaningful prospective decisions to be put the SGM to the members, whom it seems, in the recent history of general meetings, will, in any event, do whatever is recommended to them by the Board on the basis of "The Board knows best".

Chris Davis wrote: February 17th, 2024, 1:06 pm I would expect the survey to cover these three main areas - because that's what the Trust said would be the subject of consultation:

1. How the Trust should be run in the future. (I don't know if this includes whether the Trust should be run at all but I doubt it!).

2. How we should elect two new directors for the board of the football club and what we should expect of them;

3. How the Trust can represent the interests of supporters and best support the club under the new ownership model.

I am unconvinced that a survey/questionnaire alone will provide any great insights into any of the above. I am equally unconvinced that there is a value to doing it at all. This is mainly because there are no 'pat' answers to any of the three questions. Further, there may be so many widely different and unevidenced suggestions that the responses become meaningless. Myself, I think I would have liked to have a seen a call for interested members to join a small 'focus group' for each of the three above. These groups could 'hammer out' a series of more meaningful questions that could have been put in the survey. The 'trick' will be to distil what comes out of the overall consultation exercise into meaningful prospective decisions to be put the SGM to the members, whom it seems, in the recent history of general meetings, will, in any event, do whatever is recommended to them by the Board on the basis of "The Board knows best".

I think you understand my thrust that when the trust board and the club board were largely the same, that business decisions the the club board may have wanted to make, were likely watered down or lost by what could be presented as logical to the Trust membership.

Unfortunately a business decision might impact individuals, who in turn might not see the bigger picture because they have been affected.

I find it odd that HJ is not involved though, as effectively if the trust looks at the jobs that it could do, why overlap and thus hinder the club's decisions?

To me it's simpler to say to HJ what is it that you can't do? Obviously the Trust is the direct link to the fans, but do we need the tail to try to wag the dog? To me there should be clear separation now, to avoid duplication, with the vast majority of tasks performed by the club.

As I say, this is my view of how best to use the business and football knowledge of HJ, that with the best will in the world, the Trust will always be behind the curve.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 17th, 2024, 7:01 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 17th, 2024, 1:06 pm I would expect the survey to cover these three main areas - because that's what the Trust said would be the subject of consultation:

1. How the Trust should be run in the future. (I don't know if this includes whether the Trust should be run at all but I doubt it!).

2. How we should elect two new directors for the board of the football club and what we should expect of them;

3. How the Trust can represent the interests of supporters and best support the club under the new ownership model.

I am unconvinced that a survey/questionnaire alone will provide any great insights into any of the above. I am equally unconvinced that there is a value to doing it at all. This is mainly because there are no 'pat' answers to any of the three questions. Further, there may be so many widely different and unevidenced suggestions that the responses become meaningless. Myself, I think I would have liked to have a seen a call for interested members to join a small 'focus group' for each of the three above. These groups could 'hammer out' a series of more meaningful questions that could have been put in the survey. The 'trick' will be to distil what comes out of the overall consultation exercise into meaningful prospective decisions to be put the SGM to the members, whom it seems, in the recent history of general meetings, will, in any event, do whatever is recommended to them by the Board on the basis of "The Board knows best".

I think you understand my thrust that when the trust board and the club board were largely the same, that business decisions the the club board may have wanted to make, were likely watered down or lost by what could be presented as logical to the Trust membership.

Unfortunately a business decision might impact individuals, who in turn might not see the bigger picture because they have been affected.

I find it odd that HJ is not involved though, as effectively if the trust looks at the jobs that it could do, why overlap and thus hinder the club's decisions?

To me it's simpler to say to HJ what is it that you can't do? Obviously the Trust is the direct link to the fans, but do we need the tail to try to wag the dog? To me there should be clear separation now, to avoid duplication, with the vast majority of tasks performed by the club.

As I say, this is my view of how best to use the business and football knowledge of HJ, that with the best will in the world, the Trust will always be behind the curve.

I suspect the the Club BOD were not to any extent hindered by what the Trust members might think of decisions they made.

I think at some point the Trust must involve HJ in determining how both organisations can work in synergy but I don't accept that it is for him to dictate the Trust's agenda. I don't believe that he wants that relationship either.

Chris Davis wrote: February 17th, 2024, 7:43 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 17th, 2024, 7:01 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 17th, 2024, 1:06 pm I would expect the survey to cover these three main areas - because that's what the Trust said would be the subject of consultation:

1. How the Trust should be run in the future. (I don't know if this includes whether the Trust should be run at all but I doubt it!).

2. How we should elect two new directors for the board of the football club and what we should expect of them;

3. How the Trust can represent the interests of supporters and best support the club under the new ownership model.

I am unconvinced that a survey/questionnaire alone will provide any great insights into any of the above. I am equally unconvinced that there is a value to doing it at all. This is mainly because there are no 'pat' answers to any of the three questions. Further, there may be so many widely different and unevidenced suggestions that the responses become meaningless. Myself, I think I would have liked to have a seen a call for interested members to join a small 'focus group' for each of the three above. These groups could 'hammer out' a series of more meaningful questions that could have been put in the survey. The 'trick' will be to distil what comes out of the overall consultation exercise into meaningful prospective decisions to be put the SGM to the members, whom it seems, in the recent history of general meetings, will, in any event, do whatever is recommended to them by the Board on the basis of "The Board knows best".

I think you understand my thrust that when the trust board and the club board were largely the same, that business decisions the the club board may have wanted to make, were likely watered down or lost by what could be presented as logical to the Trust membership.

Unfortunately a business decision might impact individuals, who in turn might not see the bigger picture because they have been affected.

I find it odd that HJ is not involved though, as effectively if the trust looks at the jobs that it could do, why overlap and thus hinder the club's decisions?

To me it's simpler to say to HJ what is it that you can't do? Obviously the Trust is the direct link to the fans, but do we need the tail to try to wag the dog? To me there should be clear separation now, to avoid duplication, with the vast majority of tasks performed by the club.

As I say, this is my view of how best to use the business and football knowledge of HJ, that with the best will in the world, the Trust will always be behind the curve.

I suspect the the Club BOD were not to any extent hindered by what the Trust members might think of decisions they made.

I think at some point the Trust must involve HJ in determining how both organisations can work in synergy but I don't accept that it is for him to dictate the Trust's agenda. I don't believe that he wants that relationship either.

I think we have ended up with a survey which it's not clear that anyone appears to be keen on, due to the trust having to take the opinion of the members.

Trust resultions to look at how to integrate trust benefits, and also report on how trust money is spent, has IMO established the relationship between the trust and HJ. If his commercial department want to change how benefits are distributed, that can only now be problematic for the club.

As you asked HJ if the trust's funds were vital to his plans, and HJ answered that they are not vital, so what is actually vital for the trust to provide? That's the key unknown, when attempting to compile a survey on the future of the trust.

I think there's a difference between 'vital', which, shall we say, equals 'necessary' and 'desirable', which might vary from 'quite' to 'extremely' desirable. I think that HJ could run the AFC without any funding and non cash support from the Trust. However, unless he could attract replacement investment in, then it could make the running of the AFC as a commercial enterprise much less sure and success on and off the field much more problematic. As a business man, given the choice of 'no strings' ongoing cash inflow and a 'with strings' external investment, he would choose the former every time and certainly at the begining of his investment.

There is also the issue that the Trust is still a substantial investor in the AFC . Any investor needs to support it's investment and hopefully support the investment's growth. In the AFC's case, the 'traditional' and highly necessary way was for the Trust to pump money into it and simply on a cash flow basis. With HJ's arrival that aspect becomes less vital. That means the Trust can continue to support and possibly build it's investment in other ways than purely pumping money in just to keep the AFC financially afloat. One but only one aspect of that continued but different support is that the Trust is financially 'there' should everything go pear shape in the future. It is also now possible for the Trust to support it's investment by directing it's funding into 'infrastructure' type investment e.g. the Academy and 'community benefit' type investment.

So, while asking the question "....what is actually vital for the Trust to provide?" you may be looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope by looking at it from the AFC end. Perhaps the right way or at least a more balanced way is to look at it is from the Trust's end.

Chris Davis wrote: February 18th, 2024, 8:42 am I think there's a difference between 'vital', which, shall we say, equals 'necessary' and 'desirable', which might vary from 'quite' to 'extremely' desirable. I think that HJ could run the AFC without any funding and non cash support from the Trust. However, unless he could attract replacement investment in, then it could make the running of the AFC as a commercial enterprise much less sure and success on and off the field much more problematic. As a business man, given the choice of 'no strings' ongoing cash inflow and a 'with strings' external investment, he would choose the former every time and certainly at the begining of his investment.

There is also the issue that the Trust is still a substantial investor in the AFC . Any investor needs to support it's investment and hopefully support the investment's growth. In the AFC's case, the 'traditional' and highly necessary way was for the Trust to pump money into it and simply on a cash flow basis. With HJ's arrival that aspect becomes less vital. That means the Trust can continue to support and possibly build it's investment in other ways than purely pumping money in just to keep the AFC financially afloat. One but only one aspect of that continued but different support is that the Trust is financially 'there' should everything go pear shape in the future. It is also now possible for the Trust to support it's investment by directing it's funding into 'infrastructure' type investment e.g. the Academy and 'community benefit' type investment.

So, while asking the question "....what is actually vital for the Trust to provide?" you may be looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope by looking at it from the AFC end. Perhaps the right way or at least a more balanced way is to look at it is from the Trust's end.

To me that is precisely the issue, we have lots of trust members looking at the trust from a myopic viewpoint, that simply of their own benefits, not how it would interact with the club.

There is view that the trust should ask people why they are not in the trust? But having asked HJ if trust funds are vital (an own goal in my opinion) you now seem hugely reluctant to find out what HJ sees as vital?

So instead of looking at the trust as a blank piece of paper, where freed from the responsibility of running the club, it could develop. We now have it looking inwards, and the vital things being decided by the existing membership, are openness and keeping lop sided benefits.............

Who is representing what is vital for the club or what is vital for non members?

I think it should also be remembered that the age profile of voting members is such that in their younger days they paid to join a fan club for a group, or solo artist. They bought records, they bought and read the sports argus. That's not what a huge part of the fan base does now, free Pod casts replace the argus, music is free on Spotify or Utube..........do they look at the trust through the eyes of someone who shudders at the word expunged, or isn't that a reason for them to join?

IMO you now have 4 trust reps who are leaving because they are no longer vital people needed to the club. They don't want to tell the trust membership how it should run now, likewise HJ doesn't need to be seen as driving the inevitable change in the trust. So IMO it is up to you to ask HJ questions, (as you scored the own goal) not HJ come forward........

Your statement earlier in the thread was that the trust should assist the club, but be run in a community benefit way. Why? We have established that it doesn't have to be, so why is that vital to keep it as it is? That's not looking at it from a blank page new start viewpoint is it?

Your very much choosing not to start from a blank page, and perhaps that is why you met some resistance to your trust openness policy. Business is very dependent on relationships, and details of how those operate tend to be subject to disclosure agreements. Therefore a Newport County fan will not find much detail in the RP accounts, it's just how Business operates.........

HJ stated that he saw the trust as his link between the fans and the club, but the Trust seem to want the link to be between the fans and the community........

The way I can see a future trust and club relationship working, is one of mutual trust, and mutual assistance.

IMO the club in general has a support age problem, due to the wilderness years. As a rough guess, I would say that 40% of fans watched league games, when the club was in its first incarnation. Perhaps 40% of fans have only known the reincarnated club, and the remaining 20% represent the lost generation.
So to me to build the support base, the target are fans that might have only seen the County when playing on the telly, or those that may have only seen CZJ and MU and nothing else.

To me because the trust is effectively a club that you pay to join, its dominated by an age group that have always paid, and want the trust to be primarily some sort of insurance policy against going bust. Personally I don't think HJ would think that's what he needs to assist him. So why should he now provide benefits and incentives that don't involve fans attending more regularly? Likewise we have heard the argument that he will just be happy to recieve £100k a year (that he can't actually priortise or even use, because the trust have other ideas for spending it).

So let's say for instance the trust decides to buy flats every year to build up a stock for players. In ten years time the trust might own enough to raise cash against if it needed it. All well and good, however in ten years time the costs of buying and then maintaining flats will be very different to the costs today, but what do we think will happen to the amount of trust members and the size of the contributions?
The club are providing the benefits on the basis of value today, but as the trust age rises contributions can only reduce overall, as flats idea won't appeal to those it needs to target.

What I would like to see are ideas that don't target the existing trust members, but work with the club to target the middle aged that didn't get involved due to the wilderness years.

I think the Trust has had its day. The apathy when it owned the club was there for all to see from the supporters how many didn't even bother contributing £5 per month. The £100k is not essential to HJ and the concept of an organisation deciding on initiatives and spending on someone else's business as it sees fit without reference to the business owner is frankly bizarre.
The Trust should at best if it is to continue agree one or two targets where it feels it can help help with HJ and the money required to reach the target, then go about raising the funds.
I await with interest whether any potential directors come forward and fear that they will only become the target of the vocal few encouraging them to berate HJ if a decision is made they do not like, which no doubt will include very petty matters. I see it becoming as it did before very toxic.
It is still the case that nobody has been held accountable for the issues of competence and governance that undoubtedly occurred to create the financial black hole, the cover up at the public meetings was evident and at the very least fiduciary duty is likely to have been breached - the Trust really lost its purpose and right to continue on the back of this.

County ranger wrote: February 20th, 2024, 2:19 pm I think the Trust has had its day. The apathy when it owned the club was there for all to see from the supporters how many didn't even bother contributing £5 per month. The £100k is not essential to HJ and the concept of an organisation deciding on initiatives and spending on someone else's business as it sees fit without reference to the business owner is frankly bizarre.
The Trust should at best if it is to continue agree one or two targets where it feels it can help help with HJ and the money required to reach the target, then go about raising the funds.
I await with interest whether any potential directors come forward and fear that they will only become the target of the vocal few encouraging them to berate HJ if a decision is made they do not like, which no doubt will include very petty matters. I see it becoming as it did before very toxic.
It is still the case that nobody has been held accountable for the issues of competence and governance that undoubtedly occurred to create the financial black hole, the cover up at the public meetings was evident and at the very least fiduciary duty is likely to have been breached - the Trust really lost its purpose and right to continue on the back of this.

Agree with this. The trust should have a target (training ground, perhaps?) which it can work towards over a 5-10 year period, Or failing that, just be a player fund or something similar if the appetite isn't there for anything bigger.

I think that the Trust is a Club you pay to join. But it has not been simply a club you pay to join just to get benefits. It is, and most certainly was, a Club you wanted to join because it supported the AFC financially. I believe that was the primary motivation for most members joining and very much a secondary motivation was that you got benefits provided by the AFC for being Trust members. I think that's supported when you look at the range of benefits provided by the Trust grades of membership. They don't amount to much. As far as I can see few or none of those benefits require much effort from the AFC and no direct financial outlay by it for those benefits.

In order to try to retain existing members and recruit new ones, I think the Trust must continue to emphasise that the AFC does find it's financial support desirable but not necessarily in the old way. So, imo, the Trust needs to demonstrate that it can provide desirable support in quite focused ways that dovetails the wishes of the AFC and the Trust. It may be that the wishes of the Trust will become clearer after the consultation exercise. However, I do think that Trust members in deciding where they want to go,importantly should be aware that one day they might have to 'rescue' or reclaim the AFC and they would need to build a reserve to be in a realistic position to do that. How that reserve is built up and how it is invested in the best way will be decisions taken in the fullness of time and on expert advice, I would hope.

rncfc wrote: February 20th, 2024, 2:25 pm

County ranger wrote: February 20th, 2024, 2:19 pm I think the Trust has had its day. The apathy when it owned the club was there for all to see from the supporters how many didn't even bother contributing £5 per month. The £100k is not essential to HJ and the concept of an organisation deciding on initiatives and spending on someone else's business as it sees fit without reference to the business owner is frankly bizarre.
The Trust should at best if it is to continue agree one or two targets where it feels it can help help with HJ and the money required to reach the target, then go about raising the funds.
I await with interest whether any potential directors come forward and fear that they will only become the target of the vocal few encouraging them to berate HJ if a decision is made they do not like, which no doubt will include very petty matters. I see it becoming as it did before very toxic.
It is still the case that nobody has been held accountable for the issues of competence and governance that undoubtedly occurred to create the financial black hole, the cover up at the public meetings was evident and at the very least fiduciary duty is likely to have been breached - the Trust really lost its purpose and right to continue on the back of this.

Agree with this. The trust should have a target (training ground, perhaps?) which it can work towards over a 5-10 year period, Or failing that, just be a player fund or something similar if the appetite isn't there for anything bigger.

Myself would get rid of trust and bring in more money people. The 48% is wasted and needs seriously looking at!!!!

Chris Davis wrote: February 20th, 2024, 2:41 pm I think that the Trust is a Club you pay to join. But it has not been simply a club you pay to join just to get benefits. It is, and most certainly was, a Club you wanted to join because it supported the AFC financially. I believe that was the primary motivation for most members joining and very much a secondary motivation was that you got benefits provided by the AFC for being Trust members. I think that's supported when you look at the range of benefits provided by the Trust grades of membership. They don't amount to much. As far as I can see few or none of those benefits require much effort from the AFC and no direct financial outlay by it for those benefits.

In order to try to retain existing members and recruit new ones, I think the Trust must continue to emphasise that the AFC does find it's financial support desirable but not necessarily in the old way. So, imo, the Trust needs to demonstrate that it can provide desirable support in quite focused ways that dovetails the wishes of the AFC and the Trust. It may be that the wishes of the Trust will become clearer after the consultation exercise. However, I do think that Trust members in deciding where they want to go,importantly should be aware that one day they might have to 'rescue' or reclaim the AFC and they would need to build a reserve to be in a realistic position to do that. How that reserve is built up and how it is invested in the best way will be decisions taken in the fullness of time and on expert advice, I would hope.

So basically you are saying that the purpose of the Trust will always be just an insurance policy, and that is why the existing members joined and will remain, irrespective of any benefits.

Well to me it needs to be honest with itself and say that it no longer wishes to recieve benefits, because it wants to only be an insurance policy. And I don't see anything wrong with that as a viewpoint. Indeed I have long since said that the trust should be buying club shares, exactly for that purpose.

But while it pretends that it wishes to assist HJ, it will just lose its existing membership simply to age. It will IMO not appeal to the young or middle aged, who generally have has their financial futures diminished by the old in society, and therefore don't wish to participate in the same financial things.