MichaelNUFC

I went. It was sparsely attended as usual but the presentation was professionally done and threw up some interesting figures from the survey both in terms of how people percieve the club and the Trust. One very revealing stat was the stark contrast between people who say they want public meetings and the number of those people who then say they are likely to attend them. I don't have the exact figures to hand but I believe that something like 35% of the 4700+ people who replied to the survey wanted Town Hall style public meetings to be held by the Trust once every three months yet when asked the follow-up question as to how likely they would be to attend the said meetings only 40 people of this 4'700 said that they would! I thought that the new chair was a lot more impressive at this meeting than he was while finding his feet at the AGM and in general the meeting was more positive with the Trust clearly accepting the areas of criticism they had recieved via the survey and looking to improve the channels of communication with both members and the media, which to be fair to them has also been a lot better in the past few weeks since the new chair took over. Overall quite a positive meeting with some intelligent discussion of global footballing matters...just a pity about the attendence. They are hoping to hold another meeting next month (I believe) and get a speaker from the Bundesliga over to talk about the German model.

While it's laudible that you say something to him I don't think you'll change his mind with that argument, tbh. If anything someone of that mindset might even look upon you as quietly condoning it, even though I appreciate you arn't. The phrase "(Insert racist view), of course you can't say that nowerdays..." has become something of a nudge, nudge, wink, wink terminology for casual racists. This isn't helped by the way in which fossils like the one you're describing are drip fed hatemongering stories by the tabloids on a daily basis, telling them that their views are quietly acceptable but that they're to keep shtum in public in case they fall victim to undisclosed "PC" pressure groups, probably operating from "Brussels". It's difficult to get them to understand the true reasoning behind why they shouldn't hold such views and why such views should never have been acceptable at any time. It's even more difficult when you're trying to convince a stranger at a football match and uncomfortable in the extreme when its coming from some kindly looking old grandfather figure instead of some EDL, flag waving moron. Telling them they're racist or falling out with them doesn't help either, that will often just turn them into self-pitying martyrs. I'm not sure what you'll be able to do to change this bloke's opinions, other than perhaps explaining to him why his views make you uncomfortable, which might at least get him to think about why he still harbours them himself. I think if you're from somewhere like Dunston like he is, you very much have a village mentality, everyone knows each other, everyones related to each other, and it's just become standard practise. It's the same with Italy to a greater extent, racism has become acceptable in football grounds there through ignorance. By me saying "nowadays" wasn't condoning it I was trying to get him to see that when he was growing up using racist terminology wasn't the taboo it is today, and also I questioned why he used it, "whey man they're everywhere", I was like so. Older people are often to set in their ways to change. Yeah, I completley understand you wern't condoning it, mate. I was just pointing out that, sadly, many of the people you describe tend to miss the point of why its considered wrong to be racist "nowerdays", i.e. not because of some "PC brigade", as they often refer to it, but simply because the majority of people are better eductated "nowerdays" than they were back then (despite the best efforts of our fearmongering tabloid press) and so can understand and despise racism as the ignorance it is. Like I say though, its a good thing that you openly questioned his remarks, that tends to make people think more than simply getting them thrown out on the sly would do; that only adds fuel to the persecution complex of people who think that "you can't say anything these days". It's far better that these closed minded people learn that actually, they can say what they like, but that most right minded people will think they're a pleb and be prepared to call them out if they make stupid remarks like the one you heard.

While it's laudible that you say something to him I don't think you'll change his mind with that argument, tbh. If anything someone of that mindset might even look upon you as quietly condoning it, even though I appreciate you arn't. The phrase "(Insert racist view), of course you can't say that nowerdays..." has become something of a nudge, nudge, wink, wink terminology for casual racists. This isn't helped by the way in which fossils like the one you're describing are drip fed hatemongering stories by the tabloids on a daily basis, telling them that their views are quietly acceptable but that they're to keep shtum in public in case they fall victim to undisclosed "PC" pressure groups, probably operating from "Brussels". It's difficult to get them to understand the true reasoning behind why they shouldn't hold such views and why such views should never have been acceptable at any time. It's even more difficult when you're trying to convince a stranger at a football match and uncomfortable in the extreme when its coming from some kindly looking old grandfather figure instead of some EDL, flag waving moron. Telling them they're racist or falling out with them doesn't help either, that will often just turn them into self-pitying martyrs. I'm not sure what you'll be able to do to change this bloke's opinions, other than perhaps explaining to him why his views make you uncomfortable, which might at least get him to think about why he still harbours them himself.

From what I can see the lads from United for Newcastle have a good relationship with the Trust, hence why the latter is promoting the formers petition and the former is thanking the latter on its official facebook page for helping them. Perhaps the new group is sensible enough to understand that there is room for both groups to co-exist (as I've said before I think their's room for three: The Trust, a supporters club and a protest group, none of which need to be at the others throats). The recent criticism of the Trust, as I understand it, hasn't been to do with it not being "radical and provocative" but rather about its poor communication, in-fighting and lack of media prescence, areas that have shown green shoots of improvement in the past few weeks since the new chair took over. I'd be happy for a protest group to emerge and would back one if it did, but I don't expect the Trust to be that group, least of all because, aside from the fact that this isn't what a trust is supposed to be doing, in a legal sense it's also completely unfeasible for any established body with accountable people behind it to do any effective or meaningful protesting without massive political and legal interference to what they could achieve. Radical, provocative protest groups are best kept underground, else they face being neutered at all levels and ultimately left impotent as to what they can achieve.

Absolutely, if I sounded critical of this bloke/group it wasn't meant to be. Just makes you wonder, if UtdForNewcastle can arrange discussion with club reps, why can't other groups? I know what you're getting at here but I believe that this is one of the areas where the Trust arn't 100% to blame. While its true that they did themselves no favours when they snubbed Llambias at the outset of the 'Yes we can' campaign (rightfully as they had nothing to show at that stage but wrongly in the language they used to do so) it has since become apparent that the club, or rather Llambias, wants to see the Trust disolved. The club is aware of and indeed is actively encouraging other fan groups to disassociate themselves from the Supporters Trust. This is actually happening. That to me tells me that they are fearful, not perhaps of the less than stellar way that the Trust has been run in the past year, but of the power that the Supporters Trust movement in general is building within the game and where it might one day lead with the right people behind it. I'd personally welcome an umbrella fans organisation that incorporates the political groups such as NUST, supporters groups such as the mooted replacement for NUSC, and single issue protest groups that emerge from time to time...indeed I know one lad previously associated with the Trust who is still very keen to make this happen. However its important that any such group be vigilant over its relationship with the club and make sure that it isn't going to become 'fans liaison committee' MkII. I'm not for a second suggesting that this is what is happening with UFN and, indeed, I'm impressed with what information they have gotten out of the club (presumably from talks with Simon Estland - who is fairly open to speaking to supporters and doesn't, to my knowledge, require Steve Wraith as some sort of go-between) but the knowledge that the club is looking for a new patsy should always be preying on their minds and the minds of anybody seemingly welcomed in by this regime. Indeed should we qualify for Europe in forthcoming seasons, it will be mandatory to have at least one such person occupying the role of 'Supporter Liaison Officer' http://www.nust.org.uk/club-fan-links-in-u...ensing-criteria. It's also possible that the club are using meetings such as the one with UFN to satisfy Premier League regulations that state that they must have consultations with their supporter base. This is what the tea and creamcakes of the supporters panel used to satisfy but as that was abolished following our relegation, there have been questions raised (as they were at the NUST AGM) about whether or not the club is in breach of Premier League guidelines by not reinstating it after our promotion. The general feeling was that they were. Perhaps the occasional meeting with groups like UFN and the lads from the singing section mean that they are now satisfying this criteria. Who can say?

18 is a fair reflection of the way the trust has been run over the last 18 months. I toyed with renewing just so I could tell the committee what a mess they’ve made of things, but at the end of the day they don’t give a shit. I can understand why you’re angry but the blame for the crappy turnout lies entirely at the door of those who have treated the membership with contempt. I renewed even though the heresay from this site was compelling me not to. I originally joined as I was all for the Supporters Club when it started up and thought it was a good idea, and could only do good. I was impressed with a few of the people at the very first meeting and renewed as I felt that a lot of people deserved the benefit of the doubt for actually trying to make something happen. It looks as though my tenner went straight to Thompson House!!! I can't stand our local papers and this boils my piss even more. I thought these people were backing the trust out of some kind of local benevolence, however, true to form they weren't. Anyone, with only limited knowledge of whats been happening with the NUST would've been forgiven for jacking it in and for anyone to show surprise at a shit turnout shows just how out of touch they must be. Being fair, I don't think that anyone who attended has said that they were surprised by the turnout. Certainly the post you've quoted from me, made on the night in question wasn't intended to be one of surprise at the size of the attendence but rather one of frustration and annoyance at the predictability of it all (and if you check back a few pages you'll see that while some were complaining that the venue wouldn't be big enough, I was indeed predicting that we'd struggle to get more than 50 people). As for jacking it in. The reality revealed to those of us who did attend the AGM is that while 1000+ people did just this at renewal stage, another 1000+ people didn't; among that number were 500+ who live in the Newcastle area and who could, more than likely, have attended. I understand that your point might be that these people became disenfranchised after they renewed and subsequently chose to express this disenfranchisment by not attending. However, if that is your point, and indeed the case, then it only reaffirms my belief that we have ultimately ended up with exactly what we deserve from our supporters group because, yet again, rather than taking the time to voice our grievances, or in your own words "make something happen", we simply chose to give up at the first hurdle, letting apathy reign and protesting the waste we feel our tenner was by saying and doing nothing to the people responsible for that waste when the opportunity presented itself. If NUST has become a parody of the club, as some have claimed in recent time, then it seems its active membership have become a parody of the fans who protest Ashley's tenure by being quiet and putting up with it (or at worst grumbling about it online). That's a rather depressing thought for me, hence my frustrated post on the night in question. Of course it could be that the dissenting "rabble rousers" are really as small in number as some within the committee apparently think they are...and that French lady at the meeting was right: everything is rosy in the garden and we're just being grumpy old curmudgeons when everyone else is perfectly happy with the Trust's direction. I wasn't overly impressed with the new chair at the meeting, especially when he resorted to the truism "we are only volunteers". While that's a fair and reasonable defence to a lot of things levelled at people in such roles; it wasn't really a very robust response to people who have held the exact same roles as those on the stage and who wern't trying to pick on the committee but were simply wanting clear, tangible answers as to what had happened to a once well run, profitable and progressive organisation to turn it into a silent, uncommunicative, 'going concern'. It did seem he was still finding his feet, however, so I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt that he can turn things around and will listen to what he has to say at the next meeting. I hope by then, however, that he's learned to seperate what he called "negativity" from genuine member concern over direction. In his favour, we've seemingly had more movement over highlighting supporter issues/concerns from the Trust in the last few weeks than there was in the whole of the previous chair's tenure, so I hope this continues under his leadership Very true of course, but it also relies on the membership actively guiding those running it with their input. This can't be achieved if everyone stays at home at the next meeting, where the excuse of a poor timeslot/choice of venue won't exist. I really hope that as many members as possible take the opportunity to turn up on March 3rd and have their say; whatever that say may be. The AGM finally got all of the secrets out from under the carpet (or at least the important ones) so the next meeting should very much be about how to move the organisation forward from the mess it somehow managed to get itself into over the past year.

While there is an argument that others might deserve it more, any name of merit is preferable to "The East Stand" which is, frankly, just a waste of a name. Sir Bobby is certainly a name of merit and achieved more for the club in his five years than many of his predecessors, as well as being one of the greatest ambassadors the game had. I've no problem whatsoever with this going ahead, if true. It would show a measure of class from a largely classless regime. I just hope it is being done for the right reasons and not to ingratiate that regime with supporters.

I've also noticed that they've been quite active in releasing statements over the past few days regarding, ticketing, seats etc. Too little too late perhaps but a move in the right direction at least. Unfortunately these "press releases" still don't appear to be being picked up or published in the papers which I think is further evidence that the "we'll go to them not have them come to us" policy with the press isn't necessarily working. You have to have a bit of give and take with the press and that means popping up on their shows to discuss minor things now and again in return for them promoting you when you need it. Undoubtedly a much better venue chosen this time for the next meeting though.

Although I appreciate their efforts I'm not sure that I agree with this . I used to have my season ticket in Ultra-ville and while the atmosphere and standing was very enjoyable up there (bar some of the more immature nonsense chanting) the reality I found sitting in the Gallowgate (and indeed have found sitting in other parts of the ground now and again) for the Arsenal game was that the sound created up there just doesn't carry. Other than a few muted "FCB" chants I couldn't hear a thing they may or may not have been chanting and any atmosphere that built up in and around where I was sat came solely as a response to events on the pitch. That's always been the problem with the location of the "singing section", they're stuffed so far from the pitch that the players can't even hear them. I sort of take your point that there could be a domino effect but again, I think on Saturday, it was less about chanting and more about a wall of noise in response to the events on the pitch; events that can't really be said to be influenced by supporters chanting songs that are lost in the stratosphere. Are you that pro-Ashley cunt on Newcastle Online who kept having a go at me for criticising Ashley ? Leazes, Leazes, Leazes. Michael is actually one of the founders of the NUSC you tit. He looks at things objectively, something you're incapable of doing. The man knows more about the ins and outs of football ownership etc than you could dream of. just a question. Who says the founders of NUSC didn't misguidedly support Mike Ashley in the beginning ? Most did exactly that. As to whether he knows more than me about NUFC, who can say ? no reply from him ? I'm taking that as a yes. Meaning he can't be that clever, when he can't admit it either. Or maybe hes not that into being called a cunt cos you think he might be someone who once said something to you? Our he hasn't been online? Why are you picking a fight with him anyway? just a simple question Gemmill. I realise there was no need to say "cunt" but if he isn't the same person, then I will apologise. If he is the same person, then he is in fact a "cunt", like all the other arseholes on Newcastle Online particularly who were taken in by our owner and can't find it in themselves to admit their judgement was abysmal. I'm not sure what it is you want me to reply to, tbh. I didn't see the need to reply to your initial post given that Mac-Toon already confirmed to you who I was and what I was involved with the setting up of. It's never something I've been secretive about. I would have thought that this would have given you a fair view of my opinions about our owner and rule me out as being the person that you, for some reason, suspected me to be. If you insist on further clarification then here it is: I'm not a member of Newcastle Online, never have been and indeed I have rarely, if ever, read it (the only time I did being out of necessity to the role I had in the NUSC/T). If I'm honest, I'm not sure why anything I've posted on here would make you think differently, but then I'm not sure what it is that I've said to apparently incur your ire on here either. Anyway, Hope that helps clear things up for you. Michael

Although I appreciate their efforts I'm not sure that I agree with this . I used to have my season ticket in Ultra-ville and while the atmosphere and standing was very enjoyable up there (bar some of the more immature nonsense chanting) the reality I found sitting in the Gallowgate (and indeed have found sitting in other parts of the ground now and again) for the Arsenal game was that the sound created up there just doesn't carry. Other than a few muted "FCB" chants I couldn't hear a thing they may or may not have been chanting and any atmosphere that built up in and around where I was sat came solely as a response to events on the pitch. That's always been the problem with the location of the "singing section", they're stuffed so far from the pitch that the players can't even hear them. I sort of take your point that there could be a domino effect but again, I think on Saturday, it was less about chanting and more about a wall of noise in response to the events on the pitch; events that can't really be said to be influenced by supporters chanting songs that are lost in the stratosphere. Whey the away fans can hear the corner....and even at four nil, if you could hear anything, it was Newcastle chants. That wasn't thanks to any events on the pitch. The Conkeys made some noise, but we always gave it back. Families are just going to sit and drink their Juicy Fruits and eat their Maltesers in that situation. It'll be embarrassing. Yeah, one of the positives of having the singing section located there is that they do a good job of nullifying noise from the away support and, as I say, its made for some memorable banter over the past few years. Its just unfortunate that the noise they produce evidently doesn't carry down to other parts of the ground or, perhaps more importantly, the pitch where the players might be roused by it. I agree though that putting the family section next to away fans is madness...if only because of what those families are going to have their ears exposed to.

The story in one of Keegan's autobiographies about him shimying down a drainpipe and disappearing on the back of a Harley Davidson is my all time fav!

Although I appreciate their efforts I'm not sure that I agree with this . I used to have my season ticket in Ultra-ville and while the atmosphere and standing was very enjoyable up there (bar some of the more immature nonsense chanting) the reality I found sitting in the Gallowgate (and indeed have found sitting in other parts of the ground now and again) for the Arsenal game was that the sound created up there just doesn't carry. Other than a few muted "FCB" chants I couldn't hear a thing they may or may not have been chanting and any atmosphere that built up in and around where I was sat came solely as a response to events on the pitch. That's always been the problem with the location of the "singing section", they're stuffed so far from the pitch that the players can't even hear them. I sort of take your point that there could be a domino effect but again, I think on Saturday, it was less about chanting and more about a wall of noise in response to the events on the pitch; events that can't really be said to be influenced by supporters chanting songs that are lost in the stratosphere.

Wasn't the PLC offically blamed for the Ferdinand decision?

Canny bloke tbh, cursed to work under a horrible administration. Came across well and the reasons for the changes well stated, although obviously no comfort for fans having to shift seats. what were the reasons? "Customer demand". Nowt to do with L7 being a hotbed of standing/Anti-Ashley tunesmiths then. Ashley must be pie-eyed if he thinks that moving on a group of young lads will help stifle such songs. His advertising hoardings were being torn down in the Gallowgate during the Arsenal game and I didn't see any "Ultras" around there.

Canny bloke tbh, cursed to work under a horrible administration.