NUST meltdown

[Kitman 2207]

The last line is a killer.

 

And a bullseye methinks

[Gejon 2]

I am very much an outsider on the whole NUSC/NUST thing but it seems they are very, very arrogant and just cannot see the problems they are creating. Their arrogance allows them to just brush off mounting negative criticism as it's from a "stupid minority" and they know best.

[ewerk 31195]

This time last year around 30,000 fans had subscribed as members, a figure which has now dropped to 25,000.

 

Really?

[peasepud 59]

I am very much an outsider on the whole NUSC/NUST thing but it seems they are very, very arrogant and just cannot see the problems they are creating. Their arrogance allows them to just brush off mounting negative criticism as it's from a "stupid minority" and they know best.

Basically summed up in 2 sentences but its not NUST as an entity, its three people who have built themselves an empire and surrounded themselves with people who'll agree whatever they do. There are/were good people on the board who just wanted NUFC fans to have representation, who just wanted to create something that fans could be part of and feel proud to be associated with.

 

An EGM is not far away, as soon as we know the numbers required it'll be organised and then the shit really will hit the fan.

[Tom_NUFC 0]

Yet again a decent committee member feels that they have to resign.

 

Like Bill, Neil has put a lot of his time into the trust and was involved to genuinely create a trust that represents and listens to it's members.

 

For me it says a lot that two committee members have felt the need to resign. The committee has a lot of questions to answer, and I feel as though they are failing the members.

If two of the cttee have resigned, citing lack of communication as the main driver then what fucking chance have us mere mortals got in finding out what the plans are? The chair should realise how bad things are given the fact Bill posted his resignation on the forum - That speaks volumes to me.

 

Your chances of finding stuff out aren't great, but I guess you've probably worked that one out for yourself.

It's up to the members to put pressure on and force them to.

 

The chair should realise how bad things are, but I honestly think the chair doesn't give a shit. Again, the way to make him is put the pressure on.

[peasepud 59]

This time last year around 30,000 fans had subscribed as members, a figure which has now dropped to 25,000.

 

Really?

nope, a total and utter fabrication (although a legitimate one) 30,000 signed up to the email newsletter and were quite cleverly classed as members. The number of actual paying members was somewhere around the 2000 mark.

 

 

If two of the cttee have resigned, citing lack of communication as the main driver then what fucking chance have us mere mortals got in finding out what the plans are? The chair should realise how bad things are given the fact Bill posted his resignation on the forum - That speaks volumes to me.

As Tom has said, individually we have fuck all chance they'll merely ignore us on the belief that we'll get bored and walk away. As the chairs logic stands, so what if they dont renew? they're just rabble rousers anyway.

 

Collectively though we have enough power to force the issue. 10% of the membership signing up for an EGM and it has to happen, once there then they have to answer the questions. Its at that point the members present can make their minds up what the truth is and vote them in or out.

 

Theyre arrogant enough to believe it cant be done, well it can as long as we all work to make as many members as possible aware of the situation.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Is the chair the same bloke who edits The Mag?

[Monkeys Fist 43066]

Is the chair the same bloke who edits The Mag?

Think so.

Mark Jensen?

[Tom_NUFC 0]

Is the chair the same bloke who edits The Mag?

Think so.

Mark Jensen?

Yes

[ChezGiven 0]

One thing that hasnt come out in this thead is what point of view(s) is (are) being suppressed by the NUST board?

 

Who are the rabble rousers and what do they want?

[Guest alex]

Is Jensen just an ego driven twat then? Seems like he's only in it for himself, although given the lack of communication even that's hard to fathom out.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Didn't he have a fall out with Backpage too?

[peasepud 59]

One thing that hasnt come out in this thead is what point of view(s) is (are) being suppressed by the NUST board?

 

Who are the rabble rousers and what do they want?

 

In what way do you mean?

 

The problem at the moment is that the board refuse to listen to any views of the members or even certain committee members. They are doing everything they can to try and get out of holding an AGM even though it is a mandatory requirement of being a Trust.

 

Theres also a lot of very dodgy rumours flying around, some of them will surely be crap but some of them look very dodgy when reviewed alongside certain decisions being made by the chair.

 

Feel free to come on here and refute them though Mr J. Like I say they are rumours and Ive not repeated them so Solicitors threats wont work here.

 

The rabble rousers are basically anyone who questions the decisions or direction of the Trust.

 

 

I guess that includes me and Tom then

 

 

Didn't he have a fall out with Backpage too?

Yes, see my statement above on very dodgy rumours.

[ChezGiven 0]

Sorry i used the term 'rabble rousers' as a joke.

 

I just meant, was there a particular point of view that is being suppressed? It all sounds quite general (not listening to any views) but i was interested to know if there were points of view being raised which were specifically uncomfortable to the leadership and hence were being deliberately controlled.

 

Basically i want to know if the leadership are militant activists wanting to lynch Ashley and some moderate views were being shouted down, or the even the opposite, the leadership are trying to moderate their stance and membership want more direct action. Or none of the above?

[ChezGiven 0]

Mark Jensen wrote 'A mag for all seasons' as Billy Furious, didnt he?

 

Good book that.

[Christmas Tree 4821]

Sorry i used the term 'rabble rousers' as a joke.

 

I just meant, was there a particular point of view that is being suppressed? It all sounds quite general (not listening to any views) but i was interested to know if there were points of view being raised which were specifically uncomfortable to the leadership and hence were being deliberately controlled.

 

Basically i want to know if the leadership are militant activists wanting to lynch Ashley and some moderate views were being shouted down, or the even the opposite, the leadership are trying to moderate their stance and membership want more direct action. Or none of the above?

 

 

Damn you and your clever questions

[maggiespaws 0]

I am very much an outsider on the whole NUSC/NUST thing but it seems they are very, very arrogant and just cannot see the problems they are creating. Their arrogance allows them to just brush off mounting negative criticism as it's from a "stupid minority" and they know best.

Basically summed up in 2 sentences but its not NUST as an entity, its three people who have built themselves an empire and surrounded themselves with people who'll agree whatever they do. There are/were good people on the board who just wanted NUFC fans to have representation, who just wanted to create something that fans could be part of and feel proud to be associated with.

 

An EGM is not far away, as soon as we know the numbers required it'll be organised and then the shit really will hit the fan.

 

Pud, you and I have spoken about this and although I dont think I share the same views as some on here regarding what the direction of the NUST/C should be, I think we're all in agreement the current direction is wrong.

 

As I said - I'll sign back up if it will help to change things, if only to help vote out the current lot. But for now, as someone who no longer even lives in the area I dont feel there's much I can do and as a member I have no voice - so what's the point.

 

Its such a shame though because its going to make it really difficult for anyone else to try and pick this up even if the current board are voted out. People are so disenfranchised now that I feel it would be an uphill struggle for anyone to pick up.

 

I'd rather we reined in our expectations and ideas and concentrate on building a decent supporters club. Once we have that in place, perhaps a trust could/should follow. Little Acorns etc....

[peasepud 59]

Sorry i used the term 'rabble rousers' as a joke.

 

I just meant, was there a particular point of view that is being suppressed? It all sounds quite general (not listening to any views) but i was interested to know if there were points of view being raised which were specifically uncomfortable to the leadership and hence were being deliberately controlled.

 

Basically i want to know if the leadership are militant activists wanting to lynch Ashley and some moderate views were being shouted down, or the even the opposite, the leadership are trying to moderate their stance and membership want more direct action. Or none of the above?

 

Not sure why the "Sorry" as I didnt take anything dodgy from your post?

 

The term rabble rousers is how the chair refers to any members who have questioned the current position and he has been quoted as stating that hes not bothered if the memberships drop because it'll mainly be the rabble rousers that leave.

 

In the beginning NUSC started out as a full on protest group however a few weeks in and a number of us realised that wasnt going to get us anywhere so we worked to move to more of a toned down stance. That group included Mark J, Michael Martin and one or two others disagreed which is where the arguments at the last meeting arose.

 

The problem now though isnt a difference in opinion on such a big scale as protest/dont protest but simply a case of Jensen having such a high opinion of himself as Mr Liverpool Newcastle that no other fan/ board member/ Trust member could possibly know better than him therefore he refuses to even listen to an alternative view. Thats the issue, we are now being taken down the MJ route regardless of whether its sensible, logical or what is best for NUST/ NUFC.

Pud, you and I have spoken about this and although I dont think I share the same views as some on here regarding what the direction of the NUST/C should be, I think we're all in agreement the current direction is wrong.

 

As I said - I'll sign back up if it will help to change things, if only to help vote out the current lot. But for now, as someone who no longer even lives in the area I dont feel there's much I can do and as a member I have no voice - so what's the point.

 

Its such a shame though because its going to make it really difficult for anyone else to try and pick this up even if the current board are voted out. People are so disenfranchised now that I feel it would be an uphill struggle for anyone to pick up.

 

I'd rather we reined in our expectations and ideas and concentrate on building a decent supporters club. Once we have that in place, perhaps a trust could/should follow. Little Acorns etc....

 

Exactly, that was what my Election manifesto talked about, unfortunately (for me not necessarily the Trust) people voted based on YWC and the dream of owning the club.

[Ketsbaia 0]

If only we had a well organised, democratic supporters group to represent us in the media over the coming days and weeks. Oh...

[Guest alex]

[peasepud 59]

If only we had a well organised, democratic supporters group to represent us in the media over the coming days and weeks. Oh...

 

Ahhh but we can wax lyrically about Plymouth and Fulham though.

[peasepud 59]

So I attempted to find out how many members the Trust has, a simple request as per Supporters Direct rules gave me sight of the members register however because its not clear in the register who is a voting member I asked for some further numbers to be sent to me.

 

The secretary (even though it should be his decision) passed my request to the Trust board and they refused to give out the info citing (and I quote) "they have confirmed that they are not prepared to share data with you that isn't made available to all other members."

 

So this is where SD now falls short of its position as a governing body, there is no information on how the calling for an EGM should be managed, are we to leave it to NUST to manage and confirm when we've reached the magical 10% mark? somehow I dont think thats going to happen.

 

Theres a "fiddle" going on in the numbers, it could well be a legitimate fiddle but its one nonetheless, affiliated members I believe are being shown on the members register along with children, neither of which are entitled to vote and therefore do not count towards the 10% figure. The 1500 members figure is way higher than the number who can vote but without having sight of something official then its impossible to do.

 

What I asked for isnt some secret info, its stuff that should be in the public domain. I would now ask that each and every member make a request to see the register and spend a good hour or two looking at it. It wont gain anything but its your right as a member to do and it should hopefully piss off the secretary enough to get him to sort out the numbers for me.

 

andrew.harrison@nust.org.uk give him a shout and request its carried out as per SDs rules and made available at the registered office.

[Kitman 2207]

I'm a non member but an interested bystander. If ever there was a time to step up to the plate, this is it. The NUST should be canvassing its members and then putting forward their view as to what's gone on and whether it's in the best interests of the club. If they keep silent, and let the likes of Steve Wraith speak for the supporters - despite him having no legitimacy whatsoever - then the NUST really has no credibility as a representative organisation, and might as well be dissolved as it really has no purpose.

 

By the same token, failure to canvass the membership but speaking on their behalf would make them no better than Wraith, and questions should be asked.

 

imo, of course.

[peasepud 59]

I'm a non member but an interested bystander. If ever there was a time to step up to the plate, this is it. The NUST should be canvassing its members and then putting forward their view as to what's gone on and whether it's in the best interests of the club. If they keep silent, and let the likes of Steve Wraith speak for the supporters - despite him having no legitimacy whatsoever - then the NUST really has no credibility as a representative organisation, and might as well be dissolved as it really has no purpose.

 

By the same token, failure to canvass the membership but speaking on their behalf would make them no better than Wraith, and questions should be asked.

 

imo, of course.

 

Agree totally with the first para there are however times such as these where you dont need to canvass the members view because they are so clearly one view. It would be totally safe for the Trust to say that the vast majority of Newcastle fans arent happy with the current situation for instance. Part of having a democratic group is that the members trust the organisation to talk for them however there are many times when they will need to get the views of the members in order to do that.

[Kitman 2207]

I'm a non member but an interested bystander. If ever there was a time to step up to the plate, this is it. The NUST should be canvassing its members and then putting forward their view as to what's gone on and whether it's in the best interests of the club. If they keep silent, and let the likes of Steve Wraith speak for the supporters - despite him having no legitimacy whatsoever - then the NUST really has no credibility as a representative organisation, and might as well be dissolved as it really has no purpose.

 

By the same token, failure to canvass the membership but speaking on their behalf would make them no better than Wraith, and questions should be asked.

 

imo, of course.

 

Agree totally with the first para there are however times such as these where you dont need to canvass the members view because they are so clearly one view. It would be totally safe for the Trust to say that the vast majority of Newcastle fans arent happy with the current situation for instance. Part of having a democratic group is that the members trust the organisation to talk for them however there are many times when they will need to get the views of the members in order to do that.

 

You're right of course but given the membership is now plainly down to about 12 people (hence their nervousness about disclosure), it shouldn't take long for Mark to ring around