So what is it that the Trust DOES want - if it’s not ground redevelopment, as per the club’s recent proposal?
(despite of course Trust members voting in favour, albeit by a tiny and insufficient majority).
I have never been a member of the Trust, mostly because I’ve always thought the shared ground ownership was a bad idea, and likely to deter the majority of future owners from wanting to get involved - especially having seen the outcome of this vote, and what happens to club progress when the fans decide they don't like its plans.
We have created a fairly unique situation where we are wedded to an owner that it appears half of fans have decided they no longer like or trust. It’s easy to blame Clem for most things, but I think it’s actually a failure of the fanbase to allow itself to get backed into a corner like this.
For me the Trust needs to do more than demonstrate good governance and comms - which it undoubtedly does - it needs to demonstrate a VISION for the future that most/all fans can get behind. The 50/50 split on the redevelopment vote literally benefits nobody - club, team, owners or fans - and I think may act as a deterrent to potential new owners.
I see people talk about the Trust like it is a business, like it has wealthy investors, like it has the same rights as the wives of investors that own a chunk of the club. The trust is 1300 fans with a handful of volunteers that sit on the board. organise things and converse with the club owner.
What is it that the Trust DO want? The Trust, i.e. the 1300 fans that had an opportunity to count have made it completely clear what they want. Half of the 1300 represented either are in favour of the redevelopment, not in favour, or couldn't be bothered to cast their vote. But it was clear what they want in the summary of the comments that was shared by the Trust board:
Trust in the owner and leadership of the Club – concerns over not caring what supporters think (despite significant feedback, no changes were made to the submitted plans and concepts), poor communication, history of misleading statements, sole focus on hospitality suggests that the leadership is out of touch with the regular supporter who feel disconnected or ignored, doubting whether the project serves their interests;
Funding – it took multiple attempts for the Club to clarify where the funding is coming from, concerns over increasing debt to the owner, concerns over funding reliability and what happens if it dries up, history of late payments to suppliers, current funding issues evidenced by the recent County Court Judgment;
Business Plan – demonstrates how risky an investment this is if it requires two years in the Championship to make it pay, unclear why unrelated revenues were used within the payback (i.e. sponsorship income), unclear how hospitality revenue was calculated, how the project outlay links to the payback and future sustainability of the Club;
Design and Deliverability – concerns over the ability to deliver and the contractual mechanisms to “keep the Club honest”, suggestions to derisk the project by phasing the design and aligning it with progress on the pitch (i.e. hospitality floor now, executive boxes later), commitment to improve other supporter facilities in other stands, many references to protecting against the Northampton Town situation;
Masterplan – no overall masterplan was provided – how does this project fit into the bigger plans and timescales for the stadium, concern over residential development and how this was communicated, many requests to address the basics before undertaking major projects, concerns that redevelopment of the stadium will end after a single project.You are right in saying that through the JV we are wedded to the owner - but remember that the trust was the driving force in working with the Nigel Eady Trust (a wealthy FAN) in purchasing the home that said wedded couple are living in. That arrangement has reduced the monthly outlay for the owner by 50% and that 50% is and has been earmarked to be re-invested into the ground and club that one half of the wedded couple co-ordinated funding for. Is it not realistic for thathalf of the JV to be communicated to by the other half, to not be treated with disdain, to have a home that is safe and has running water and food, and maybe some nice clothes and trinkets to purchase occaisionally. Is it fair and reasonable for one half of the JV to blame the other half for not agreeing with their plans to add a conservatory on to the house that they organised payment in full for when they haven't explained how they are going to pay for it, what the realistic business plan is, and how that conservatory is going to really benefit, and what is the wider plan of the redevelopment? and after not really talking to and engaging well with them for the past 3 years?
The VISION is not on the Trust to create, the VISION is on the club to create, and bring the fans along on the journey of that vision. The result of the vote shows that they haven't done that, and probably haven't been helped by the fact that they have been treating the fanbase with so much disdain for so long, eventually even a mistreated animal is going to turn and not put up with it any longer.
I would say that based on the feedback, the majority of the No voters were in favour for the general idea of the redevelopment, who wouldn't, we are desperate for it, but does the wedded partner feel loved by the other, nah not really..
The reason this vote didn't go through sits squarly with the ownership, not the No voters, not the Yes voters, not the Trust, not the OSC, the DSC, the weird business group, the club historian, the SO69 or the numerous Pro Clem groups.. Clem has bought the club and is the current custodian which means it's up to him to look after it and the fans that put their money into it. He got it for a song, effectively bought the debt, and now wants to add to that debt without a coherant plan as to what comes next apart from building a statue of him. Maybe he should go on Dragons Den.
Poll
