As far as I am aware, the CBS is called Newport County Community Football Club Limited in the model rules. According to the share register, the shares are registered to Newport County AFC Supporters Society Limited suggesting that there are two separate legal entities.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:03 pmThank you for your comments, which I appreciate. I do care but my real concern is that if the CBS ceases to exist by operation of law at the moment of transfer, which 'legal person' is the owner of the remaining shares in the AFC. It cannot be Newport County Supporters Trust because that CBS no longer would exist.OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:48 pm Thanks for that explanation Chris, you have obviously done a great deal of research into the matter, and it is clearly something you care deeply about.
I believe I have a greater understanding now.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
17For me, it is not for HJ to define the purpose of the Trust. After the takeover, I don't consider the Trust as some 'outsourced department' of the AFC. However, I do see a recognition in the words "important partner" a huge amount of common ground between the Trust and the AFC and common goals that we should be working towards in a two way partnership. Some of these have been expressed in HJ's agreed proposal.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:38 pmObviously it's not going to be the same people, as we can assume HJ will be running things for some time.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:12 pmIn some form the Trust, if it wants to continue as a CBS must find some ITB, Maybe, for example, it could, with the agreement of the existing retailer take over the sportswear/merchandising retail operation. But whatever, in my opinion, it would have to find some business format. I think that it would be a big ask to convince Trust members that the performance of the Trust in managing of the AFC in recent years merits a second chance. I think that you would have to show a distinction between a Trust as a appropriate model and those who have been charged in recent years with operating it.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:53 pmIMO that is different to serving a need. Hopefully HJ can clarify the need, as he has agreed with you that it is not financial in relation to the business of the actual club. If it is more community based then that would fit with the BTI that you believe is now required.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:23 pmOn the basis that there is a very large 'silent majority' associated with the Trust, who virtually never involve themselves in how the Trust works or is run, I think a BOD could do almost anything they like with the Trust providing that it was seen to be supporting the AFC and a reasonable amount of transparency was shown.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:16 pmThen why do you believe that the trust should continue to exist if it is seen to be unable to step up to the plate in future?Amberexile wrote: November 1st, 2023, 11:58 amOnce in power, why give a damn about the masses until you need them again? They are just a means to the end of attaining the power and funding you while there.Bangitintrnet wrote: October 31st, 2023, 8:42 pmThat's interesting, but what good is power, if the masses don't actually believe it will deliver anything good?Amberexile wrote: October 31st, 2023, 5:52 pm Some for of Trust will continue into the future as I see little on the way of a desire to close the Trust altogether. In my view, when considering the future role of the Trust it is important to look at the owner after next. Even if you believe that HJ is acting mainly in the better interests of the football club, he will not be the last owner and we have no idea who the next one will be and how they will behave. Whatever role the Trust takes on in the future, they will find themselves as powerless as the Sheffield Wednesday Trust is currently with regards to Chansiri's latest outburst and the potential damage to the club.
I also hope that the trust are able to pursade trust members that they haven't been unsuccessful in running the club, and could step up to the plate at some future date if required to do so. As mentioned before, IMO if HJ wants the trust to remain an almost equal partner, he must want them to be involved in choosing his successor.
What I am getting at is the need expressed by HJ for the trusts shareholding in NCAFC to not only be maintained, but to be increased by individual shareholders passing some of their holding to the Trust. There has to be a point in doing that, and if people don't want the trust anywhere near running the club in future, then we are back to people just finding a reason for the trust to exist again.
Personnally if that need isn't defined by HJ, then I am out, and going by the fact only two people are commenting about a future for the trust, a large number may have already left or are considering leaving...........
I absolutely recognise how few people comment on these posts but, unless it degenerates into a slanging match, those who contribute do offer valuable views. But, I agree that for, whatever reason, the vast majority seem to have nothing to say and as a consequence have nothing to complain about if things don't work out as they wish.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
18Newport County AFC Supporters Society Ltd holds the shares. This is a Registered Society registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (the Act) and registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA): Registration number 29353R. I can actually find no trace of this Company from web searches. I cannot find Newport County Community Football Club Limited on the FCA site.Amberexile wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:46 pmAs far as I am aware, the CBS is called Newport County Community Football Club Limited in the model rules. According to the share register, the shares are registered to Newport County AFC Supporters Society Limited suggesting that there are two separate legal entities.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:03 pmThank you for your comments, which I appreciate. I do care but my real concern is that if the CBS ceases to exist by operation of law at the moment of transfer, which 'legal person' is the owner of the remaining shares in the AFC. It cannot be Newport County Supporters Trust because that CBS no longer would exist.OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:48 pm Thanks for that explanation Chris, you have obviously done a great deal of research into the matter, and it is clearly something you care deeply about.
I believe I have a greater understanding now.
But in any event, it is Newport County AFC Supporters Society Limited that both holds the shares and is registered with the FCA.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
19I don't recall HJ advocating individual shareholders gifting their AFC shares to the trust. It was mentioned at one of the meetings by Colin Everett. Of course the many people holding one or two shares may only amount to a few percentage points, possibly fewer than those who are no longer with us. There are maybe a dozen or so owning the bulk of the 21%. I don't see them being gifted to the Trust under its current management or constitution but maybe a future regime might make overtures to individuals when the purpose of the Trust is redefined.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
20I am of course only speaking for myself in this, but I find the idea that the trust should exist on the basis of running the shop, and being transparent about itself very alarming. Particularly as transparency needs to come from the club, as the trust no longer run the club. Think of it through the eyes of someone not in the trust, it's hardly a reason to join is it?Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:52 pmFor me, it is not for HJ to define the purpose of the Trust. After the takeover, I don't consider the Trust as some 'outsourced department' of the AFC. However, I do see a recognition in the words "important partner" a huge amount of common ground between the Trust and the AFC and common goals that we should be working towards in a two way partnership. Some of these have been expressed in HJ's agreed proposal.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:38 pmObviously it's not going to be the same people, as we can assume HJ will be running things for some time.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:12 pmIn some form the Trust, if it wants to continue as a CBS must find some ITB, Maybe, for example, it could, with the agreement of the existing retailer take over the sportswear/merchandising retail operation. But whatever, in my opinion, it would have to find some business format. I think that it would be a big ask to convince Trust members that the performance of the Trust in managing of the AFC in recent years merits a second chance. I think that you would have to show a distinction between a Trust as a appropriate model and those who have been charged in recent years with operating it.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:53 pmIMO that is different to serving a need. Hopefully HJ can clarify the need, as he has agreed with you that it is not financial in relation to the business of the actual club. If it is more community based then that would fit with the BTI that you believe is now required.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:23 pmOn the basis that there is a very large 'silent majority' associated with the Trust, who virtually never involve themselves in how the Trust works or is run, I think a BOD could do almost anything they like with the Trust providing that it was seen to be supporting the AFC and a reasonable amount of transparency was shown.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:16 pmThen why do you believe that the trust should continue to exist if it is seen to be unable to step up to the plate in future?Amberexile wrote: November 1st, 2023, 11:58 amOnce in power, why give a damn about the masses until you need them again? They are just a means to the end of attaining the power and funding you while there.Bangitintrnet wrote: October 31st, 2023, 8:42 pmThat's interesting, but what good is power, if the masses don't actually believe it will deliver anything good?Amberexile wrote: October 31st, 2023, 5:52 pm Some for of Trust will continue into the future as I see little on the way of a desire to close the Trust altogether. In my view, when considering the future role of the Trust it is important to look at the owner after next. Even if you believe that HJ is acting mainly in the better interests of the football club, he will not be the last owner and we have no idea who the next one will be and how they will behave. Whatever role the Trust takes on in the future, they will find themselves as powerless as the Sheffield Wednesday Trust is currently with regards to Chansiri's latest outburst and the potential damage to the club.
I also hope that the trust are able to pursade trust members that they haven't been unsuccessful in running the club, and could step up to the plate at some future date if required to do so. As mentioned before, IMO if HJ wants the trust to remain an almost equal partner, he must want them to be involved in choosing his successor.
What I am getting at is the need expressed by HJ for the trusts shareholding in NCAFC to not only be maintained, but to be increased by individual shareholders passing some of their holding to the Trust. There has to be a point in doing that, and if people don't want the trust anywhere near running the club in future, then we are back to people just finding a reason for the trust to exist again.
Personnally if that need isn't defined by HJ, then I am out, and going by the fact only two people are commenting about a future for the trust, a large number may have already left or are considering leaving...........
I absolutely recognise how few people comment on these posts but, unless it degenerates into a slanging match, those who contribute do offer valuable views. But, I agree that for, whatever reason, the vast majority seem to have nothing to say and as a consequence have nothing to complain about if things don't work out as they wish.
For me HJ has a project to drive, and if the trust don't see themselves as part of that project, then I don't see that people are going to consider joining or for that matter staying......
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
21I mentioned the shops because if the CBS is to continue then it must find some ITB - it almost doesn't matter what it is. If it becomes a Trust but not being one cloaked in a CBS then it won't need an ITB. I think and I believe that the vast majority of Trust members think that transparency is of the highest importance. So, not only should it be transparent to Trust members in how the Trust operates over all it's operations, which may include: adherence to a Vision for the Trust and how that Vision is being achieved, to what extent is the Trust keeping it's promises to HJ, matters of Trust governance and direction beyond that promised to HJ and managing it's role vis-a- vis the wider community, etc. I also think that the Trust, through it's representation on the AFC BOD, should be advocating for the highest level of transparency from the AFC. Obviously, HJ has the final say on that and other things but I think where transparency is a clear wish of the Trust members and the wider fan base, the Trust on the AFC should act as a 'pressure group' for those views. Of course, that assumes that HJ has a different view on transparency to that of the Trust.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:56 pmI am of course only speaking for myself in this, but I find the idea that the trust should exist on the basis of running the shop, and being transparent about itself very alarming. Particularly as transparency needs to come from the club, as the trust no longer run the club. Think of it through the eyes of someone not in the trust, it's hardly a reason to join is it?Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:52 pmFor me, it is not for HJ to define the purpose of the Trust. After the takeover, I don't consider the Trust as some 'outsourced department' of the AFC. However, I do see a recognition in the words "important partner" a huge amount of common ground between the Trust and the AFC and common goals that we should be working towards in a two way partnership. Some of these have been expressed in HJ's agreed proposal.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:38 pmObviously it's not going to be the same people, as we can assume HJ will be running things for some time.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:12 pmIn some form the Trust, if it wants to continue as a CBS must find some ITB, Maybe, for example, it could, with the agreement of the existing retailer take over the sportswear/merchandising retail operation. But whatever, in my opinion, it would have to find some business format. I think that it would be a big ask to convince Trust members that the performance of the Trust in managing of the AFC in recent years merits a second chance. I think that you would have to show a distinction between a Trust as a appropriate model and those who have been charged in recent years with operating it.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:53 pmIMO that is different to serving a need. Hopefully HJ can clarify the need, as he has agreed with you that it is not financial in relation to the business of the actual club. If it is more community based then that would fit with the BTI that you believe is now required.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:23 pmOn the basis that there is a very large 'silent majority' associated with the Trust, who virtually never involve themselves in how the Trust works or is run, I think a BOD could do almost anything they like with the Trust providing that it was seen to be supporting the AFC and a reasonable amount of transparency was shown.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:16 pmThen why do you believe that the trust should continue to exist if it is seen to be unable to step up to the plate in future?Amberexile wrote: November 1st, 2023, 11:58 amOnce in power, why give a damn about the masses until you need them again? They are just a means to the end of attaining the power and funding you while there.Bangitintrnet wrote: October 31st, 2023, 8:42 pmThat's interesting, but what good is power, if the masses don't actually believe it will deliver anything good?Amberexile wrote: October 31st, 2023, 5:52 pm Some for of Trust will continue into the future as I see little on the way of a desire to close the Trust altogether. In my view, when considering the future role of the Trust it is important to look at the owner after next. Even if you believe that HJ is acting mainly in the better interests of the football club, he will not be the last owner and we have no idea who the next one will be and how they will behave. Whatever role the Trust takes on in the future, they will find themselves as powerless as the Sheffield Wednesday Trust is currently with regards to Chansiri's latest outburst and the potential damage to the club.
I also hope that the trust are able to pursade trust members that they haven't been unsuccessful in running the club, and could step up to the plate at some future date if required to do so. As mentioned before, IMO if HJ wants the trust to remain an almost equal partner, he must want them to be involved in choosing his successor.
What I am getting at is the need expressed by HJ for the trusts shareholding in NCAFC to not only be maintained, but to be increased by individual shareholders passing some of their holding to the Trust. There has to be a point in doing that, and if people don't want the trust anywhere near running the club in future, then we are back to people just finding a reason for the trust to exist again.
Personnally if that need isn't defined by HJ, then I am out, and going by the fact only two people are commenting about a future for the trust, a large number may have already left or are considering leaving...........
I absolutely recognise how few people comment on these posts but, unless it degenerates into a slanging match, those who contribute do offer valuable views. But, I agree that for, whatever reason, the vast majority seem to have nothing to say and as a consequence have nothing to complain about if things don't work out as they wish.
For me HJ has a project to drive, and if the trust don't see themselves as part of that project, then I don't see that people are going to consider joining or for that matter staying......
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
22All of course represents the existing members, but does nothing to attract future members or create a need to join is my point.Chris Davis wrote: November 2nd, 2023, 7:57 amI mentioned the shops because if the CBS is to continue then it must find some ITB - it almost doesn't matter what it is. If it becomes a Trust but not being one cloaked in a CBS then it won't need an ITB. I think and I believe that the vast majority of Trust members think that transparency is of the highest importance. So, not only should it be transparent to Trust members in how the Trust operates over all it's operations, which may include: adherence to a Vision for the Trust and how that Vision is being achieved, to what extent is the Trust keeping it's promises to HJ, matters of Trust governance and direction beyond that promised to HJ and managing it's role vis-a- vis the wider community, etc. I also think that the Trust, through it's representation on the AFC BOD, should be advocating for the highest level of transparency from the AFC. Obviously, HJ has the final say on that and other things but I think where transparency is a clear wish of the Trust members and the wider fan base, the Trust on the AFC should act as a 'pressure group' for those views. Of course, that assumes that HJ has a different view on transparency to that of the Trust.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:56 pmI am of course only speaking for myself in this, but I find the idea that the trust should exist on the basis of running the shop, and being transparent about itself very alarming. Particularly as transparency needs to come from the club, as the trust no longer run the club. Think of it through the eyes of someone not in the trust, it's hardly a reason to join is it?Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:52 pmFor me, it is not for HJ to define the purpose of the Trust. After the takeover, I don't consider the Trust as some 'outsourced department' of the AFC. However, I do see a recognition in the words "important partner" a huge amount of common ground between the Trust and the AFC and common goals that we should be working towards in a two way partnership. Some of these have been expressed in HJ's agreed proposal.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:38 pmObviously it's not going to be the same people, as we can assume HJ will be running things for some time.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:12 pmIn some form the Trust, if it wants to continue as a CBS must find some ITB, Maybe, for example, it could, with the agreement of the existing retailer take over the sportswear/merchandising retail operation. But whatever, in my opinion, it would have to find some business format. I think that it would be a big ask to convince Trust members that the performance of the Trust in managing of the AFC in recent years merits a second chance. I think that you would have to show a distinction between a Trust as a appropriate model and those who have been charged in recent years with operating it.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:53 pmIMO that is different to serving a need. Hopefully HJ can clarify the need, as he has agreed with you that it is not financial in relation to the business of the actual club. If it is more community based then that would fit with the BTI that you believe is now required.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:23 pmOn the basis that there is a very large 'silent majority' associated with the Trust, who virtually never involve themselves in how the Trust works or is run, I think a BOD could do almost anything they like with the Trust providing that it was seen to be supporting the AFC and a reasonable amount of transparency was shown.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:16 pmThen why do you believe that the trust should continue to exist if it is seen to be unable to step up to the plate in future?Amberexile wrote: November 1st, 2023, 11:58 amOnce in power, why give a damn about the masses until you need them again? They are just a means to the end of attaining the power and funding you while there.Bangitintrnet wrote: October 31st, 2023, 8:42 pm
That's interesting, but what good is power, if the masses don't actually believe it will deliver anything good?
I also hope that the trust are able to pursade trust members that they haven't been unsuccessful in running the club, and could step up to the plate at some future date if required to do so. As mentioned before, IMO if HJ wants the trust to remain an almost equal partner, he must want them to be involved in choosing his successor.
What I am getting at is the need expressed by HJ for the trusts shareholding in NCAFC to not only be maintained, but to be increased by individual shareholders passing some of their holding to the Trust. There has to be a point in doing that, and if people don't want the trust anywhere near running the club in future, then we are back to people just finding a reason for the trust to exist again.
Personnally if that need isn't defined by HJ, then I am out, and going by the fact only two people are commenting about a future for the trust, a large number may have already left or are considering leaving...........
I absolutely recognise how few people comment on these posts but, unless it degenerates into a slanging match, those who contribute do offer valuable views. But, I agree that for, whatever reason, the vast majority seem to have nothing to say and as a consequence have nothing to complain about if things don't work out as they wish.
For me HJ has a project to drive, and if the trust don't see themselves as part of that project, then I don't see that people are going to consider joining or for that matter staying......
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
23I'm in Krakow at present so can't put my hand on HJ's governance model, but I am pretty sure it was also mentioned in aspirational terms in that.excessbee wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:14 pm I don't recall HJ advocating individual shareholders gifting their AFC shares to the trust. It was mentioned at one of the meetings by Colin Everett. Of course the many people holding one or two shares may only amount to a few percentage points, possibly fewer than those who are no longer with us. There are maybe a dozen or so owning the bulk of the 21%. I don't see them being gifted to the Trust under its current management or constitution but maybe a future regime might make overtures to individuals when the purpose of the Trust is redefined.
I have no idea when it was last possible to buy shares in NCAFC, but would guess that it was decades ago, and thus a lot of the smaller holders are no longer with us.
If it remains a part of the governance model, I would suggest that the trust need to make it easier to re-register under a new name, and indeed transfer a portion in order to increase their overall holding.
However if people are so sceptical about trust ownership, and indeed about the trust running the club again if necessary, then it is difficult to see a large number changing hands.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
24What I don't understand is this, why would anyone want to kill-off the Trust. It just doesn't make sense.
Ok it hasn't been run properly for quite a while. But there's no need to shut it down completely. I agree that it needs to be reformed, but shutdown, definitely not.
Unless someone as a plan too take full control of Newport County, if that is case, someone (or group of people) is trying to sabotage the Trust.
I wonder if someone else (or another group of people) have been in touch with the Trust to buy the remaining shares or part of the the Trust shares?
What I also find strange is this, someone (not saying who) joins a discussion on disbanding (to break up the organization), Why?
Ok it hasn't been run properly for quite a while. But there's no need to shut it down completely. I agree that it needs to be reformed, but shutdown, definitely not.
Unless someone as a plan too take full control of Newport County, if that is case, someone (or group of people) is trying to sabotage the Trust.
I wonder if someone else (or another group of people) have been in touch with the Trust to buy the remaining shares or part of the the Trust shares?
What I also find strange is this, someone (not saying who) joins a discussion on disbanding (to break up the organization), Why?
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
25The trust's purpose was clear when Les Scadding passed over his shares. It clearly needed funds and people to run the club. Now it doesn't, so rather than at present, have people think that the same income can be spent on different things, why not except that it's purpose has now gone, and like the OBE's and Bar Amber, continuing might not be the best solution, if it will literally die in time anyway?Torquay Exile wrote: November 2nd, 2023, 4:33 pm What I don't understand is this, why would anyone want to kill-off the Trust. It just doesn't make sense.
Ok it hasn't been run properly for quite a while. But there's no need to shut it down completely. I agree that it needs to be reformed, but shutdown, definitely not.
Unless someone as a plan too take full control of Newport County, if that is case, someone (or group of people) is trying to sabotage the Trust.
I wonder if someone else (or another group of people) have been in touch with the Trust to buy the remaining shares or part of the the Trust shares?
What I also find strange is this, someone (not saying who) joins a discussion on disbanding (to break up the organization), Why?
It would be far better if your input concentrated on what would be attractive to the young.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
26You are correct, this is In HJ's statement.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 2nd, 2023, 12:47 pm...., can't put my hand on HJ's governance model, but I am pretty sure it was also mentioned in aspirational terms in that.excessbee wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:14 pm I don't recall HJ advocating individual shareholders gifting their AFC shares to the trust. It was mentioned at one of the meetings by Colin Everett. Of course the many people holding one or two shares may only amount to a few percentage points, possibly fewer than those who are no longer with us. There are maybe a dozen or so owning the bulk of the 21%. I don't see them being gifted to the Trust under its current management or constitution but maybe a future regime might make overtures to individuals when the purpose of the Trust is redefined.
........If it remains a part of the governance model, I would suggest that the trust need to make it easier to re-register under a new name, and indeed transfer a portion in order to increase their overall holding.
Further consideration to be given to bringing is as many of the shares owned by individual supporters/sponsors into the ownership of the Trust..,....
Seems a bit of an odd statement as he will have a controlling percentage of the shares. Maybe he has a sleeping partner who might put in money for ownership of the remaining trust shares and the more that are in one place the easier the transaction would be.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
27I guess it depends what people want. I bet you more people want to see a successful team than have a few hundred grand stashed away to relaunch a club if it ever goes tits up.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:56 pmI am of course only speaking for myself in this, but I find the idea that the trust should exist on the basis of running the shop, and being transparent about itself very alarming. Particularly as transparency needs to come from the club, as the trust no longer run the club. Think of it through the eyes of someone not in the trust, it's hardly a reason to join is it?Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:52 pmFor me, it is not for HJ to define the purpose of the Trust. After the takeover, I don't consider the Trust as some 'outsourced department' of the AFC. However, I do see a recognition in the words "important partner" a huge amount of common ground between the Trust and the AFC and common goals that we should be working towards in a two way partnership. Some of these have been expressed in HJ's agreed proposal.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:38 pmObviously it's not going to be the same people, as we can assume HJ will be running things for some time.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 5:12 pmIn some form the Trust, if it wants to continue as a CBS must find some ITB, Maybe, for example, it could, with the agreement of the existing retailer take over the sportswear/merchandising retail operation. But whatever, in my opinion, it would have to find some business format. I think that it would be a big ask to convince Trust members that the performance of the Trust in managing of the AFC in recent years merits a second chance. I think that you would have to show a distinction between a Trust as a appropriate model and those who have been charged in recent years with operating it.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 3:53 pmIMO that is different to serving a need. Hopefully HJ can clarify the need, as he has agreed with you that it is not financial in relation to the business of the actual club. If it is more community based then that would fit with the BTI that you believe is now required.Chris Davis wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:23 pmOn the basis that there is a very large 'silent majority' associated with the Trust, who virtually never involve themselves in how the Trust works or is run, I think a BOD could do almost anything they like with the Trust providing that it was seen to be supporting the AFC and a reasonable amount of transparency was shown.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 1st, 2023, 12:16 pmThen why do you believe that the trust should continue to exist if it is seen to be unable to step up to the plate in future?Amberexile wrote: November 1st, 2023, 11:58 amOnce in power, why give a damn about the masses until you need them again? They are just a means to the end of attaining the power and funding you while there.Bangitintrnet wrote: October 31st, 2023, 8:42 pmThat's interesting, but what good is power, if the masses don't actually believe it will deliver anything good?Amberexile wrote: October 31st, 2023, 5:52 pm Some for of Trust will continue into the future as I see little on the way of a desire to close the Trust altogether. In my view, when considering the future role of the Trust it is important to look at the owner after next. Even if you believe that HJ is acting mainly in the better interests of the football club, he will not be the last owner and we have no idea who the next one will be and how they will behave. Whatever role the Trust takes on in the future, they will find themselves as powerless as the Sheffield Wednesday Trust is currently with regards to Chansiri's latest outburst and the potential damage to the club.
I also hope that the trust are able to pursade trust members that they haven't been unsuccessful in running the club, and could step up to the plate at some future date if required to do so. As mentioned before, IMO if HJ wants the trust to remain an almost equal partner, he must want them to be involved in choosing his successor.
What I am getting at is the need expressed by HJ for the trusts shareholding in NCAFC to not only be maintained, but to be increased by individual shareholders passing some of their holding to the Trust. There has to be a point in doing that, and if people don't want the trust anywhere near running the club in future, then we are back to people just finding a reason for the trust to exist again.
Personnally if that need isn't defined by HJ, then I am out, and going by the fact only two people are commenting about a future for the trust, a large number may have already left or are considering leaving...........
I absolutely recognise how few people comment on these posts but, unless it degenerates into a slanging match, those who contribute do offer valuable views. But, I agree that for, whatever reason, the vast majority seem to have nothing to say and as a consequence have nothing to complain about if things don't work out as they wish.
For me HJ has a project to drive, and if the trust don't see themselves as part of that project, then I don't see that people are going to consider joining or for that matter staying......
I quite liked an idea put around on here a few years back of having a club rewards scheme. Maybe people will pay into that instead (platinum/gold/silver/etc) and funds can go straight to the playing budget then.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
28Certainly wouldn't discount that possibility., as his summary offer states that he will consider bringing in further investors/directors in the future.excessbee wrote: November 3rd, 2023, 12:42 pmYou are correct, this is In HJ's statement.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 2nd, 2023, 12:47 pm...., can't put my hand on HJ's governance model, but I am pretty sure it was also mentioned in aspirational terms in that.excessbee wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:14 pm I don't recall HJ advocating individual shareholders gifting their AFC shares to the trust. It was mentioned at one of the meetings by Colin Everett. Of course the many people holding one or two shares may only amount to a few percentage points, possibly fewer than those who are no longer with us. There are maybe a dozen or so owning the bulk of the 21%. I don't see them being gifted to the Trust under its current management or constitution but maybe a future regime might make overtures to individuals when the purpose of the Trust is redefined.
........If it remains a part of the governance model, I would suggest that the trust need to make it easier to re-register under a new name, and indeed transfer a portion in order to increase their overall holding.
Further consideration to be given to bringing is as many of the shares owned by individual supporters/sponsors into the ownership of the Trust..,....
Seems a bit of an odd statement as he will have a controlling percentage of the shares. Maybe he has a sleeping partner who might put in money for ownership of the remaining trust shares and the more that are in one place the easier the transaction would be.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
29Firstly, the 'further consideration' is always only going to be an aspiration. The 'privates' would have to be convinced to do so. Secondly, don't forget that if 'privates' transfer their shares to the Trust , HJ or a sleeping parther, would not have automatic acces to those shares. The Directors would have to agree to sell them to whoever. It does not necessarily mean that they would do so or the Trust would allow them to do so..OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: November 3rd, 2023, 1:25 pmCertainly wouldn't discount that possibility.excessbee wrote: November 3rd, 2023, 12:42 pmYou are correct, this is In HJ's statement.Bangitintrnet wrote: November 2nd, 2023, 12:47 pm...., can't put my hand on HJ's governance model, but I am pretty sure it was also mentioned in aspirational terms in that.excessbee wrote: November 1st, 2023, 6:14 pm I don't recall HJ advocating individual shareholders gifting their AFC shares to the trust. It was mentioned at one of the meetings by Colin Everett. Of course the many people holding one or two shares may only amount to a few percentage points, possibly fewer than those who are no longer with us. There are maybe a dozen or so owning the bulk of the 21%. I don't see them being gifted to the Trust under its current management or constitution but maybe a future regime might make overtures to individuals when the purpose of the Trust is redefined.
........If it remains a part of the governance model, I would suggest that the trust need to make it easier to re-register under a new name, and indeed transfer a portion in order to increase their overall holding.
Further consideration to be given to bringing is as many of the shares owned by individual supporters/sponsors into the ownership of the Trust..,....
Seems a bit of an odd statement as he will have a controlling percentage of the shares. Maybe he has a sleeping partner who might put in money for ownership of the remaining trust shares and the more that are in one place the easier the transaction would be.
Re: HOW YOU MIGHT KILL OFF THE TRUST – (If you wanted to).
30Of course. In all honesty, I can't understand why that statement was included in HJ's statement. I can understand the idea of having a bit of a spring-clean of the 2016(?) shares register,but if anyone should be instigating that, surely it would be the Trust, in whatever form it re-emerges after the takeover.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: County ranger, countymadbel