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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:40 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:28 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:14 pm The Trust AGM on the 25 January was followed by an “informal meeting with members to discuss the future of the Trust”. This informal meeting did take place. The purpose of the meeting was to canvas initial thoughts on three matters:

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.

There will also be a survey of Trust members as a follow up.

Each one of the above list is a complicated matters and in my opinion too complicated for a survey alone to tackle. But at least it's an attempt at the involvement of the Trust members and that should be applauded. Having been at the meeting, I am not sure of how valid suggestions from the floor were, bearing in mind the complexities and the relatively small time to consider the issues. I am not even sure if anyone, on behalf of the Trust Board was taking note of the points made. Post the meeting, there has been no communication on it setting out the suggestions made,.

Doubtless, someone on the BOD or on behalf of the BOD will be currently designing this survey. That needs a careful design in order not to lead the result in particular directions but without going the other way and being meaningless. Whatever, I think that survey needs to be out quickly, as almost three weeks have already gone and a Special General Meeting is to be called in March or April to “make formal decisions”. So, that timetable seems to assume that the whole consultative process has been completed and the Board, by mid April at the latest, has taken the time to take proper consideration of that consultative process in order to present the concrete proposasl on which formal decisions can be made, which the Directors have promissed to do.

I think that reasonably we ought to expect to receive the survey document in the next few weeks.

I didn't attend the meeting, but understand that HJ will be attending the next trust meeting. Will that be before formal decisions, or at the launch of the survey?

I am not aware that there will be any formal Trust meetings scheduled prior to the SGM, so there will not be any opportunity for HJ to attend. Further, from my recollection, it was not connected with the consultation exercise. Just a 'fuzzy feeling' thing that HJ would be invited to address the Trust at some particular unspecified Trust meeting in the future.

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:40 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:28 pm

I didn't attend the meeting, but understand that HJ will be attending the next trust meeting. Will that be before formal decisions, or at the launch of the survey?

I am not aware that there will be any formal Trust meetings scheduled prior to the SGM, so there will not be any opportunity for HJ to attend. Further, from my recollection, it was not connected with the consultation exercise. Just a 'fuzzy feeling' thing that HJ would be invited to address the Trust at some particular unspecified Trust meeting in the future.

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:16 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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:40 pm

I am not aware that there will be any formal Trust meetings scheduled prior to the SGM, so there will not be any opportunity for HJ to attend. Further, from my recollection, it was not connected with the consultation exercise. Just a 'fuzzy feeling' thing that HJ would be invited to address the Trust at some particular unspecified Trust meeting in the future.

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.

I don't share your confidence that there will be clear out of the current Board at the SGM in April. What I recall C Everett saying at the AGM was Johnston and Marks have agreed to work with HJ as the temporary Trust representatives on the club board, until the membership vote for their preferred reps. He later said he doesn't know which current Trust Board directors would be standing for re-election as he hasn't asked them. My guess is insufficient members will put themselves forward for election to form the minimum 6 required, and therefore some of the current Board will therefore stand for re-election.

Chris Davis wrote: February 16th, 2024, 8:48 am I cannot be certain because I can't remember exactly what was said at the 'informal' part of the meeting but I seem to recollect that Colin Everett said that all Trust Board members will resign sometime around the SGM. Ideally, there should then be an election process in relation to that because without new elected Board members there is no BOD. Logically, you would think that that process would take place before any elections are held but I don't think that logic will apply. So, I think that the existing BOD must stay in place until elections are completed otherwise there is no Board. However, there need not be any prior election process because the Model Rules could allow for an election 'on the night' and without a prior ballot. The Trust Rules says elections will be held in accordance with the Trust's Election Policy. I have asked for that previously and not received any response from the Trust.

As to the Trust's Rules in respect of elections, these have all been blown to pieces, in my opinion. Under the Rules, new elected Directors can only be appointed following their election at an AGM. There is no constitutional provision to appoint them at an SGM. So, because appointing at an SGM would require a Rule change, this change should be approved by the Football Supporters Association and the FA in advance of coming into effect. Personally, I doubt if one or both these bodies would approve. But I don't think they will be even asked. The constitutional route to bring Directors on board other than at an AGM is to co-opt them. But co-opted members cannot be more than a minority of the BOD. So, there has to be some elected Directors at least. Because there should be a minimum of 6 directors that means at least 4 should be elected.

It is not necessary under the Rules for some existing Board members to stand. However, the Rules basically only require a third of the elected Directors to resign at an AGM, so this means that two thirds do not have to resign and will remain in post until it is their turn to resign. So that is how some elected Directors (not co-opted) could remain in post without having to stand again.

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:40 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:28 pm

I didn't attend the meeting, but understand that HJ will be attending the next trust meeting. Will that be before formal decisions, or at the launch of the survey?

I am not aware that there will be any formal Trust meetings scheduled prior to the SGM, so there will not be any opportunity for HJ to attend. Further, from my recollection, it was not connected with the consultation exercise. Just a 'fuzzy feeling' thing that HJ would be invited to address the Trust at some particular unspecified Trust meeting in the future.

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 1:40 pm

I am not aware that there will be any formal Trust meetings scheduled prior to the SGM, so there will not be any opportunity for HJ to attend. Further, from my recollection, it was not connected with the consultation exercise. Just a 'fuzzy feeling' thing that HJ would be invited to address the Trust at some particular unspecified Trust meeting in the future.

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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?

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:12 pm

So the trust are just assuming that the current trust benefits package will still be gifted by HJ and the club are they?

Perhaps something was mentioned about conditions placed on HJ, with regard trust benefits, as a result of the Trust gifting shares to HJ?

If not, it seems to me, that the trust want benefits simply provided, but still want to be able to decide how money accrued (presumably due to those benefits) spent in a way that might not align with the person gifting the benefits....

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:32 pm

I'm not in a position to answer any of those questions, I'm sorry.

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.....

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

Amberexile wrote: February 15th, 2024, 11:13 am

I see no additional cost in providing and deciding priority. What does this cost pay for?

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.............

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

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

Stan A. Einstein wrote: February 16th, 2024, 11:10 am

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

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

Paul,

You and me have a different world view and as such often disagree. And that's fine. Further there are occasions when we agree. Let me help you with Banginternet.

Whatever you say, Bangit' will disagree. S/He also has more than one person with access to their account. Maybe a father and son. Either way they are boorish in the extreme. For what it's worth she, he, they, are alone on this board in that they have never said anything which has given me pause for thought.

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

Bangitintrnet wrote: February 14th, 2024, 3:55 pm

No reason to be sorry, I am simply pointing out that the trust and the club are now different entities, and to discuss the future with no knowledge of how the relationship will work in future, is a tiny bit presumptuous......

I am pleased however, that it seems it is possible to have a grown up conversation on this.

For those who want me to mention the Carlisle accounts, of course they are no longer in L2 so are no longer relevant. However if people really want openness, then they need HJ to represent L2 at the EFL at the earliest opportunity (assuming he would want to).

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.