New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

7 weeks since this and we are hearing rumours it hasn't happened:

https://truststfc.com/2023/09/19/share-transfer-and-ownership-statement/

"The Trust will continue to hold the Club to account by working with them in a collaborative fashion as a critical friend. We will achieve far more by working together with the Club inside the building than from looking in from the outside. An example of this is Friday’s agreement to allow a representative from the Trust Board to review the financial records and accounts of the Club, something which goes above that previously agreed and probably unheard of at other Clubs."

They really need to stop taking Clem at face value. Even saying "probably unheard of at other Clubs" before it had happened smacks of a cosy naivety, a degree of pride even.

I would gladly pay into the Trust if I felt it would represent my concerns and fight the fans' corner. It has been downhill since the day they agreed to get into bed with Power on the ground. They have to, as an organisation, wake up from this stupor soon, right? We are in the shit. You have to be organised and united to get through these issues as a fanbase. And I appreciate there will be conflicting views there, they are fans first, volunteers etc etc.

Yeah, didn't someone show that at Lincoln it is very much not unheard of?

I lost the plot big time Saturday but speaking to Clem is our saviour mongs will do that to you. Pissed off with it.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

Right, but it could be other contacts like puma shirts or, um, I dunno

I have heard we owe Puma money, which is why no third shirt.

Probably why we ended up having to lock in with them for longer too despite them being a bit shit and late every year.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

As an example of what I mean.

Puma deal - tied up for a few years, diddums, so would every other new owner of a football club be.

However, we have over a hundred years of history to leverage for marketing purposes.  When I was back in the UK in the summer, I visited a few Premier League grounds (son wanted to see a few of them) and all of them had a range of retro shirts available for purchase.  Slightly lower cost than the official ones.  Where are the STFC ones?  Can't make enough off of the current kits, flog some old style ones (replica, not actual) for a few quid less, and the plus side is you can sell them next year as well, and the year after.  The 1969 top for example, the 92/93 one.  Some of the classics.

I know it's not as simple as posting that and making money, but there really is no obvious effort to do much new at the club, bar a crazy amount of sponsorship deals, which seem to be in lieu of services most of the time.  Stop whining about what you were handed (decided to take on, not forced to) and get moving on new strategies.  So far, very little has really changed.  The only thing that did was because the Trust pushed it and Eady paid for it.

Great post.

[Wobbly Bob]

Re potentially unfavourable commercial arrangements, don't know exactly how it works but I'm assuming that Nationwide cover the difference for every discounted ticket sold?

If not then a more favourable arrangement would need to be reached.
They can afford it after all.

[Batch]

I have heard we owe Puma money, which is why no third shirt.

We certainly owed them money in the past, as per AB board. A power era debt.

I could see how our credit rating with them would be shot, assuming the debt hasn't been confused with the above (and why would it)

[JoeMezz]

As an example of what I mean.

Puma deal - tied up for a few years, diddums, so would every other new owner of a football club be.

However, we have over a hundred years of history to leverage for marketing purposes.  When I was back in the UK in the summer, I visited a few Premier League grounds (son wanted to see a few of them) and all of them had a range of retro shirts available for purchase.  Slightly lower cost than the official ones.  Where are the STFC ones?  Can't make enough off of the current kits, flog some old style ones (replica, not actual) for a few quid less, and the plus side is you can sell them next year as well, and the year after.  The 1969 top for example, the 92/93 one.  Some of the classics.

I know it's not as simple as posting that and making money, but there really is no obvious effort to do much new at the club, bar a crazy amount of sponsorship deals, which seem to be in lieu of services most of the time.  Stop whining about what you were handed (decided to take on, not forced to) and get moving on new strategies.  So far, very little has really changed.  The only thing that did was because the Trust pushed it and Eady paid for it.

Could the Trust not step up here? I get that some approaches may come across tinpot (the lottery is really tinpot) but it's a money maker and every little helps. Could the Trust not put out a fan survey of money-making ideas for the club? I'm sure there's a lot of fan ideas like above. I'm sure there's other things that can be done that generates revenue, let the fans have input and give a steer to the club.

[Batch]

Re potentially unfavourable commercial arrangements, don't know exactly how it works but I'm assuming that Nationwide cover the difference for every discounted ticket sold?

If not then a more favourable arrangement would need to be reached.
They can afford it after all.

Hadn't thought of that agreement. Good point

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

Nationwide I'm sure pay plenty in a lump sum for sponsorship. They won't be paying any difference per ticket. Its a perk for a lofty sponsorship fee.

[ThreeDrawsMentality]

Nationwide I'm sure pay plenty in a lump sum for sponsorship. They won't be paying any difference per ticket. Its a perk for a lofty sponsorship fee.

I am sure the Nationwide offering was brought back/renegotiated under Clems stewardship as well.

[The Million Pound Man]

Stop whining about what you were handed (decided to take on, not forced to) and get moving on new strategies.  So far, very little has really changed.  The only thing that did was because the Trust pushed it and Eady paid for it.

Spot on. Cunts going on like hes doing us all a favour, you were around the club for years before 'taking over' and saw something that you could gain from it, be it financial or a boost to your ego owning a club. Fucking own it, or fuck off.

[Wobbly Bob]

Fucking own it, or fuck off.

This is more or less the view that I've come around to.
Nothing against Clem personally & don't really believe that he is in any way a "wrongun". Others may disagree.
The January window will be a defining moment of his ownership one way or another.

[joeydubya]

I have heard we owe Puma money, which is why no third shirt.

Probably why we ended up having to lock in with them for longer too despite them being a bit shit and late every year.

Shirts have been a mixed bag but other clubs with the same supplier don't seem to have the same issues...

[Frigby Daser]

Does anyone know what interest Z Austin and Kiely have in not selling? Austin supposedly manoeuvred Morfuni into position to take over, and now wants to stop him selling (maybe…). Do we just assume the worst because it allows someone to (no names, obviously) to use the club for reasons other than football…

[Bennett]

Assuming any new buyer isn't dazzled by whatever he brings to the party, I'd guess Zav will be told he can do something else on a Saturday.
Anything else is utter speculation, surely?

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

Its definitely pure speculation, but when you have a convicted drug money launderer hanging around along with one of the countries biggest convicted drug dealers its kind of hard to avoid that kind of speculation.

Unless the club was being ran swimmingly and results were favourable.