OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:53 pm SGM listed for Thursday 25th April. Further details to follow. A questionnaire will be sent to all members, although no date given as to when that will be sent.
Additional a steering group of Trust members to be set up to achieve the broadest range of ideas.

wattsville_boy wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:07 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:53 pm SGM listed for Thursday 25th April. Further details to follow. A questionnaire will be sent to all members, although no date given as to when that will be sent.
Additional a steering group of Trust members to be set up to achieve the broadest range of ideas.

To some extent the call for ideas shouldn't be limited to Trust members only. Surely it would be sensible to understand why ex-Trust members are no longer members, or to gauge what would make non-Trust members to join and stay as members.

Amberexile wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:42 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 10:34 pm

Amberexile wrote: February 15th, 2024, 10:16 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 9:51 pm

Amberexile wrote: February 15th, 2024, 9:05 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 6:36 pm

Amberexile wrote: February 15th, 2024, 4:59 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: February 15th, 2024, 3:21 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 12:04 pm

Again that is the opposite to what I said, which is there is no cost to the Trust. So to you, the club has no admin costs or anything else related to ticket sales or RP?

Forget it, you clealrly lack the intelligence to understand basic English as you keep answering a different question to the one asked.

So you can't answer my question then

OK.

I will do this very slowly to help as you are clearly among the hard of thinking.

I asked and I quote "What is the £ cost of providing priority to buy match tickets?"

That is a simple question about providing priority, not about actually selling the tickets themselves. It is just about the club saying, this group of people have priority.

You have blathered on about who would pay costs and about the cost of actually selling tickets. While ignoring the point questioned

None of what you have written is relevant to actually answering that simple question.

You then complain when I repeat the question because you have answered the opposite. Saying that I am asking the opposite of what you answered. Well yes of course I am because you answered the opposite to the question asked.

Then you ask me the opposite question.

If I wanted to discuss the cost of actually selling tickets, I would have asked that question in the first place.

Which I doubt you can work out that I didn't.

All I have done is batted it back into your court, as you are the one that is saying there is no cost, not me.......

What is the cost to the club, can you answer? or are we going to get the usual?

I don't think you understand the question. So I doubt you will understand the answer.
As you say, I have already said, the £ cost of providing priority to buy match tickets is ZERO.
If you do answer, try not to show that you don't understand the question let alone the answer. It is getting very tiresome.

Right so you believe there is no cost to the club, its ZERO. So why do RP employ ticket booth and admin staff? Why do RP employ anyone? Surely there is no requirement as the cost to the club is ZERO......

It is the added complexity that is the real cost, if priority tickets didn't exist, they wouldn't be problems at point of sale.

The fact is that the priority tickets were put in place by the Trust, but they are not now in a position to deliver without the express consent of the club, and no one wants to listen to what the club thinks.

I understand from someone who went to the last meeting that although the trust would like to do lots of things, it is restricted by no one coming forward to put themselves forward. So 4 people with full time jobs are trying to manage everything, and have had enough.

I was right. You did not understand the question.

If 4 people have had enough of managing everything, perhaps they should have taken up offers of help when they were given. It is a bit late for them to be moaning now.

So the added complexity that forced you to stay on the phone for 2 days was no cost then, ZERO cost to anyone.......

Ticketline used to have an office at the bottom of Westgate Street selling tickets for big events. They don't now, because it is all online.

HJ could suggest that Newport County can save the cost of ticket and admin staff, by ticket sales being online only. How much would that save in relation to trust donations? Of course the transactions would need to be less complicated.............

That's he problem when you don't understand the question, you make yourself look stupid when you constantly answer a different one.

My question was very specific and was not about the cost of sales of tickets but about the granting of priority.

I can't work out whether or not you are pretending to be too stupid to be able to understand the difference. Either way you are wasting my time.

So I'll make my final point...

The granting of priority is a zero cost. However, the consequences down the line of doing so are not.

Because making the initial decision attracts a zero cost, there is a tendency to make it lightly without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of doing so. However, any business manager worth his salt would understand the down the line impact and costs and take those into account when making the initial decision and a good business manager would turn them into an opportunity to make a profit both now and into the future.

It is clear from the mess that was made of the sales transactions that we did neither of those things.when we easily could and should have done.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:01 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 5:43 pm

Exile 1976 wrote: February 14th, 2024, 4:59 pm


So HJ wants the Trust to still give thousands of pounds to his club and to shut up and just do it with no benefits? That’d go down well.

Someone who receives a benefit in the form of say hospitality, who is it now providing and paying the cost of that?

That is the practical difference now that the trust and the club are separated.

However at present, it seems that the trust are still deciding the benefits, and how money is spent, and due to human nature look to personal circumstances, rather than the big picture when deciding.

Prior to HJ taking over the County, the Trust were averaging £8.5k a month in payments to the football club, but in the last year that accounts are available made two "one-off" payments to the club to keep it solvent. Now I expect numbers of Trust members to fall post-takeover but if the new Trust board decide to continue to contribute to the club then there is a conversation to be had regarding benefits accrued from this largese...

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:01 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 5:43 pm

Someone who receives a benefit in the form of say hospitality, who is it now providing and paying the cost of that?

That is the practical difference now that the trust and the club are separated.

However at present, it seems that the trust are still deciding the benefits, and how money is spent, and due to human nature look to personal circumstances, rather than the big picture when deciding.

Prior to HJ taking over the County, the Trust were averaging £8.5k a month in payments to the football club, but in the last year that accounts are available made two "one-off" payments to the club to keep it solvent. Now I expect numbers of Trust members to fall post-takeover but if the new Trust board decide to continue to contribute to the club then there is a conversation to be had regarding benefits accrued from this largese...

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:01 pm

Prior to HJ taking over the County, the Trust were averaging £8.5k a month in payments to the football club, but in the last year that accounts are available made two "one-off" payments to the club to keep it solvent. Now I expect numbers of Trust members to fall post-takeover but if the new Trust board decide to continue to contribute to the club then there is a conversation to be had regarding benefits accrued from this largese...

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

wattsville_boy wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:44 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

Simple question. If the Trust, who owe 28% of the club, are expected to provide money for the club, why isn't HJ looking to the owners of the other 21% of the shares to provide their share of money?

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:01 pm

Prior to HJ taking over the County, the Trust were averaging £8.5k a month in payments to the football club, but in the last year that accounts are available made two "one-off" payments to the club to keep it solvent. Now I expect numbers of Trust members to fall post-takeover but if the new Trust board decide to continue to contribute to the club then there is a conversation to be had regarding benefits accrued from this largese...

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

wattsville_boy wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:44 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

Simple question. If the Trust, who owe 28% of the club, are expected to provide money for the club, why isn't HJ looking to the owners of the other 21% of the shares to provide their share of money?

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:02 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 15th, 2024, 2:27 pm

And as as asked the original poster, I would expect some benefits to be covered by the transfer document between the trust and HJ.........

All I am actually trying to point out, is do the trust benefits align with those of HJ'S commercial objectives?
As far as I can tell, nobody knows, and it seems from the trust's point of view, nobody wants to invite him to discuss his plans.

It could be that change could help the club, help fans, and raise more cash, but we don't know, and it seems we don't particularly want to know at present.

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

For the moment, the Trust's legal status is that of a Community Benefit Society. So, as the name on the tin says, it's purpose is to benefit the community. It's not a choice, it's a legal obligation.

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:10 pm

wattsville_boy wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:44 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

Simple question. If the Trust, who owe 28% of the club, are expected to provide money for the club, why isn't HJ looking to the owners of the other 21% of the shares to provide their share of money?

Probably because he knows that he won't get any money off them, whereas the Trust has traditionally been an organised cash cow, who's sole purpose has been to fund the AFC. Btw, you might have put the same question to the Trustees before HJ came on the scene.

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:18 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:02 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

wattsville_boy wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:20 pm

There is going to be a clear out of the current board of the Trust at the SGM. That was clear because the current board do not want to continue, but some will have to stand to comply with the articles of the Trust I believe.

The new board will have a conversation with HJ when it's members have indicated the direction they wish the new Trust to go in and when the income generated by Trust membership is known. I think most people think numbers will fall and so the revenue generated will be reduced.

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

For the moment, the Trust's legal status is that of a Community Benefit Society. So, as the name on the tin says, it's purpose is to benefit the community. It's not a choice, it's a legal obligation.

I get that, but as you say for the moment........
What other options are there?

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:18 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:02 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:00 am

Up until recently the trust also ran the club, and if as happened a lot, new people didn't stand in elections, then the existing reps continued unopposed. As those reps were running the club, obviously it was important that they continued. It's interesting that now they are not required to run the club, that they are happy not to continue.

With that burden lifted, will it prove to be easier to attract people willing to stand, or is talk of the trust requiring elections actually pointless?

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

For the moment, the Trust's legal status is that of a Community Benefit Society. So, as the name on the tin says, it's purpose is to benefit the community. It's not a choice, it's a legal obligation.

I get that, but as you say for the moment........
What other options are there?

Ironically, probably a Trust!

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:47 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:18 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:02 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:15 am

Constitutionally, the Trust must have elected Directors and there should be a minimum of 4 of them. The BOD cannot be run with a majority of co-opted Directors. If that minimum number of elected Directors cannot be found, then I believe that, constitutionally, we are in unchartered waters. But hopefully, a Trust unburdened of the AFC responsibility and with some fresh thinking might attract persons for election.

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

For the moment, the Trust's legal status is that of a Community Benefit Society. So, as the name on the tin says, it's purpose is to benefit the community. It's not a choice, it's a legal obligation.

I get that, but as you say for the moment........
What other options are there?

Ironically, probably a Trust!

Does that just require a rewrite of the constitution, or disband and start afresh?

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:03 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:47 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:18 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:02 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:22 pm

lowandhard wrote: February 16th, 2024, 7:14 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 4:04 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 10:35 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 16th, 2024, 9:45 am

Since the trust is sailing so close to uncharted waters isn't it now time to look at the constitution, and whether elections helps or hinders?

Perhaps more people would be happy to try it without having to go through the election process, or even knowing what commitment they are in for? It comes to mind how many have left during their term in office.....

The trust is currently constitutionally formed as a Community Benefit Society. The law on CBSs requires that there be elected Directors (or Oficers strictly). To those, who might wish to 'try it' but without being elected, the co-option route might be the way.

When the trust took over the running of the club, there were 15 people on the stage, none of them elected.

The often quoted Exeter model of a trust run club, also had 15 people to do all the jobs. That allows for much more to be done on top of running the club.

As far as I am aware we started with 15, eight years ago, and never really had willing volunteers to replace those leaving and thus ended up with 4.

So did the process actually work?

I’m not going to start a huge debate with you, I’ll simply say it’s obvious to me that the process was obviously instead of welcoming and transparent, far too secretive and opaque.

Oh, so it's so you can hold people to account, and feel important. Fair enough if thats what you see as important.

To me the trust has always fed money directly to the club, as the trust ran the club.......

Now it seems because of doubts over the constitution, as to what the trust is entitled to do, I. E. support the local community, people want to find a role for it, and new ideas of what to spend cash upon.

As I understand it, the supporters trust and the EFL don't support the view that the trust has to now support the community. However if that is the case why are we not looking at other ways that allow for tax free money to be provided to NCAFC?

We have had HJ fall into our laps, and instead of using the skills, experience and knowledge that he has, we are looking to benefits provided by HJ, inorder to raise cash to pay into the community!!!!

It's all arse backwards, you look at who has the skills and knowledge, and you find a way to continue what we have always done, and get the cash to him. It's that simple...........

For the moment, the Trust's legal status is that of a Community Benefit Society. So, as the name on the tin says, it's purpose is to benefit the community. It's not a choice, it's a legal obligation.

I get that, but as you say for the moment........
What other options are there?

Ironically, probably a Trust!

Does that just require a rewrite of the constitution, or disband and start afresh?

I believe when you say "the constitution" you mean the Model Rules of the CBS (aka the Trust). So, if the CBS falls away, then the whole edifice falls with it. The 'rules' of the new body would be determined by the exact legal nature of that new body.