New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[TailBetweenLegs]

I am still a bit confused to why both Dean & Holly Kiely are both on there. I assumed she just bought them in her name but i am very thick

[Batch]

I am still a bit confused to why both Dean & Holly Kiely are both on there. I assumed she just bought them in her name but i am very thick

No you aren't. Its not obvious. I'll try to check later but I think she holds the shares on his behalf (tax efficient??).  The Trust may have an explainer somewhere.

[No Longer Posh Red]

I see the Trust have released a non statement this morning, albeit saying they will have a statement following their next meeting with the owner no later than the 4th October.

[Peter Venkman]

No you aren't. Its not obvious. I'll try to check later but I think she holds the shares on his behalf (tax efficient??).  The Trust may have an explainer somewhere.

I would "think" what you are saying is true but who the fuck knows for sure.

[Leggett]

a lil' Trust update to the statement - https://x.com/TrustSTFC/status/1840689450935836967

[JoeMezz]

A reply I got from the trust

Dear Joe

Thanks for your email.

The Trust is the body that represents the supporters 50% ownership of the Nigel Eady County Ground via a JV company with the Football Club. Via this role and as a Supporters Group we interact with the Club via the JV Co Board meetings (that are focussed upon the Ground) and via the Advisory Board (the Club).

The Football Club have a long 125-year lease upon the Ground so ultimately have control of that property in the same way as another business does via its commercial lease. This means they are responsible for the maintenance of the property via their lease obligations and of any redevelopment or stadium improvements. They pay a rent of £100,000 pa and this money is reinvested into improvements (NOT! Financing the Club's repair liabilities) such expenditure needing our approval. There is often a misunderstanding of the Trust's role/position in relation to the possible redevelopment. The Club are responsible for bringing forward any development proposals for approval (where the Trust will have some say/influence) and they have to fund any such works (not the Trust). If any such works are carried out, they are excluded from any rent review.

Our roles give us access to the Owner and we thereby have the opportunity to try to influence how the Club is being run and operated. This influence does require that we have some sort of "relationship" - there is no guarantee the Club will listen or take on board our representations. In addition to the formal interactions set out above, we do have one on one meetings/telephone calls with Owner to try to give him feedback and advice.

Our Fans survey (never carried out before) sought to capture and evidence the fans views. It was presented to the Club to reinforce what we had been telling them.

We decided to publish an Open Letter to the Owner and Club to set out clearly, for all to see, what we believed to be urgently addressed. We highlighted our concern that inaction would lead to falling attendances and revenue that could put financial pressure upon the Club.

Many of the issues previously raised and highlighted, including those in our recent open letter will take time to resolve. As a result, the TrustSTFC Board decided to take stock of progress against each issue towards the end of September 2024.

That review has taken place and last week, the Chair of TrustSTFC met with the Chairman regarding the current state of the Club, on and off the pitch. These discussions are ongoing and a further meeting has been scheduled for the coming week.

In relation to "new ownership" we have no real direct role to play here, we have to be agnostic, as the Owners of the Club are the ones who must be motivated to sell, no one can force them to do so. Any potential buyer (the grass is not always greener is sad truth in football) will not be attracted to an investment that is chaotic, either in the way it is managed (financial/operational controls) or in relation to its support (falling attendances and revenue). If the Trust is seen to be a well-supported coherent supporters Group and a conduit to supporters, then in process of due diligence any would be new owner will surely reach out at some point?

The more members the Trust has the more influence it will wield on existing and possible new owners.

[Matchworn Shirts]

'The grass is not always greener'
But the Stratton Bank clock certainly was

[theakston2k]

A reply I got from the trust

Dear Joe

Thanks for your email.

The Trust is the body that represents the supporters 50% ownership of the Nigel Eady County Ground via a JV company with the Football Club. Via this role and as a Supporters Group we interact with the Club via the JV Co Board meetings (that are focussed upon the Ground) and via the Advisory Board (the Club).

The Football Club have a long 125-year lease upon the Ground so ultimately have control of that property in the same way as another business does via its commercial lease. This means they are responsible for the maintenance of the property via their lease obligations and of any redevelopment or stadium improvements. They pay a rent of £100,000 pa and this money is reinvested into improvements (NOT! Financing the Club's repair liabilities) such expenditure needing our approval. There is often a misunderstanding of the Trust's role/position in relation to the possible redevelopment. The Club are responsible for bringing forward any development proposals for approval (where the Trust will have some say/influence) and they have to fund any such works (not the Trust). If any such works are carried out, they are excluded from any rent review.

Our roles give us access to the Owner and we thereby have the opportunity to try to influence how the Club is being run and operated. This influence does require that we have some sort of "relationship" - there is no guarantee the Club will listen or take on board our representations. In addition to the formal interactions set out above, we do have one on one meetings/telephone calls with Owner to try to give him feedback and advice.

Our Fans survey (never carried out before) sought to capture and evidence the fans views. It was presented to the Club to reinforce what we had been telling them.

We decided to publish an Open Letter to the Owner and Club to set out clearly, for all to see, what we believed to be urgently addressed. We highlighted our concern that inaction would lead to falling attendances and revenue that could put financial pressure upon the Club.

Many of the issues previously raised and highlighted, including those in our recent open letter will take time to resolve. As a result, the TrustSTFC Board decided to take stock of progress against each issue towards the end of September 2024.

That review has taken place and last week, the Chair of TrustSTFC met with the Chairman regarding the current state of the Club, on and off the pitch. These discussions are ongoing and a further meeting has been scheduled for the coming week.

In relation to "new ownership" we have no real direct role to play here, we have to be agnostic, as the Owners of the Club are the ones who must be motivated to sell, no one can force them to do so. Any potential buyer (the grass is not always greener is sad truth in football) will not be attracted to an investment that is chaotic, either in the way it is managed (financial/operational controls) or in relation to its support (falling attendances and revenue). If the Trust is seen to be a well-supported coherent supporters Group and a conduit to supporters, then in process of due diligence any would be new owner will surely reach out at some point?

The more members the Trust has the more influence it will wield on existing and possible new owners.

That’s a lot of words to basically say they won’t rock the boat.

Just confirms what many have said, the Trust looking after the JV has completely blunted them as an organisation and pretty much made them pointless.

[Leggett]

I'd disagree with that to an extent, with no potential buyer currently hovvering (There has been interest though, Price of Football podcasts' financial expert has been contacted ref the price the club) then the Trust going full knives out at Clem&Co could be disastrous. Yes they're linked to the Club via the JV, but they're not exactly bedmates with the ownership group, the open letter showed that, and today's update(s) show they are still looking to hold Clem&Co to what they themselves said they'd do in response to the Trust's open letter.

As for knocking the 'grass isn't greener' comment, you wanna ask the Bury fans how their last ownership change ended? We all hope the next owners of the club will be the ones to really kick the club up to where it should be (at this point, I think most would be happy short term with a functional football club...) but the risk is always there. CoughJedCough.

[JoeMezz]

I’m not currently a member but it would be enough for me to stop paying membership. Why is it that we don’t have a supporters group that can properly challenge the owners? The trust have been silenced, the supporters club too…

[Leggett]

In my eyes, the Trust are not the ones to start gathering the pitchforks and lighting the torches... and as useful as the OSC is at times, they're so far in the pocket especially with LoveHoney/FairGame/Clem enthusiast James Spencer now on their board... there is space for a fan's group to lead the Clem Out brigade. Just need to make sure it's a good bunch of guys involved, and not noisy shouty-until-Zav-speaks-to-them types 

[Boydy]

Am I being thick or does that email claim that the Trust being negative of the owner would stop any potential new owners coming in?

The previous board becoming best mates with Morfuni was obviously a terrible thing overall but at least they had the bollocks at the time to organise a fan boycott of the club, encouraging us to not renew season tickets etc.
Now, yes, the grass not being greener is very apt when we look at how far we've fallen under the Australian con man but we're well on our way to falling out of the league as is. How much worse can it really get under the current ownership?

[Quagmire]

A reply I got from the trust

Dear Joe

Thanks for your email.

The Trust is the body that represents the supporters 50% ownership of the Nigel Eady County Ground via a JV company with the Football Club. Via this role and as a Supporters Group we interact with the Club via the JV Co Board meetings (that are focussed upon the Ground) and via the Advisory Board (the Club).

The Football Club have a long 125-year lease upon the Ground so ultimately have control of that property in the same way as another business does via its commercial lease. This means they are responsible for the maintenance of the property via their lease obligations and of any redevelopment or stadium improvements. They pay a rent of £100,000 pa and this money is reinvested into improvements (NOT! Financing the Club's repair liabilities) such expenditure needing our approval. There is often a misunderstanding of the Trust's role/position in relation to the possible redevelopment. The Club are responsible for bringing forward any development proposals for approval (where the Trust will have some say/influence) and they have to fund any such works (not the Trust). If any such works are carried out, they are excluded from any rent review.

Our roles give us access to the Owner and we thereby have the opportunity to try to influence how the Club is being run and operated. This influence does require that we have some sort of "relationship" - there is no guarantee the Club will listen or take on board our representations. In addition to the formal interactions set out above, we do have one on one meetings/telephone calls with Owner to try to give him feedback and advice.

Our Fans survey (never carried out before) sought to capture and evidence the fans views. It was presented to the Club to reinforce what we had been telling them.

We decided to publish an Open Letter to the Owner and Club to set out clearly, for all to see, what we believed to be urgently addressed. We highlighted our concern that inaction would lead to falling attendances and revenue that could put financial pressure upon the Club.

Many of the issues previously raised and highlighted, including those in our recent open letter will take time to resolve. As a result, the TrustSTFC Board decided to take stock of progress against each issue towards the end of September 2024.

That review has taken place and last week, the Chair of TrustSTFC met with the Chairman regarding the current state of the Club, on and off the pitch. These discussions are ongoing and a further meeting has been scheduled for the coming week.

In relation to "new ownership" we have no real direct role to play here, we have to be agnostic, as the Owners of the Club are the ones who must be motivated to sell, no one can force them to do so. Any potential buyer (the grass is not always greener is sad truth in football) will not be attracted to an investment that is chaotic, either in the way it is managed (financial/operational controls) or in relation to its support (falling attendances and revenue). If the Trust is seen to be a well-supported coherent supporters Group and a conduit to supporters, then in process of due diligence any would be new owner will surely reach out at some point?

The more members the Trust has the more influence it will wield on existing and possible new owners.

Copy and paste of the email I got as well.

[Bennett]

Did you ask the same questions?

[Leggett]

(Just to be clear, I'm not affiliated with the Trust beyond being a paying member since it's inception {partially because I forgot about the DD set up at the time } but I do seem to be the sole voice online atm defending them, ha!)

Am I being thick or does that email claim that the Trust being negative of the owner would stop any potential new owners coming in?

The previous board becoming best mates with Morfuni was obviously a terrible thing overall but at least they had the bollocks at the time to organise a fan boycott of the club, encouraging us to not renew season tickets etc.
Now, yes, the grass not being greener is very apt when we look at how far we've fallen under the Australian con man but we're well on our way to falling out of the league as is. How much worse can it really get under the current ownership?

I don't get the 'be mad at owner, lose potential new owners' vibe from the Trust's update at all, tbh. Only gotta look a little way up the M4 to see a club in a bit of a state and potential owners walking away because of it (Oh how I wish I could complain about an owner having chucked £200m+ at my club )