Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tilly

Where is The Norwich City Supporters Trust ?

Recommended Posts

As Chairman of NCISA can i just say that the stance taken by Kathy with the full backing of the nine member committee has obviously caused a great deal of debate on this message board.Some is supportive and some critical of what NCISA has had to say. Many feel that the current board are responsible for the decline in our club. I am not attempting to swerve the concerns raised but for those of you who think that NCISA is inactive with regard to holding the board responsible can i ask why not one person has mentioned The Norwich City Supporters Trust that was formed a few years back who claim to year on year purchase shares on behalf of its membership.They hold regular meetings with the board so just maybe a question or two to them may give the answers that a lot of you fans want.I for one would be most interested to hear their thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Tilson questions why the Trust has not commented on the apparent parlous financial state of our Football Club and the quality of the stewardship of the current Board.

In common, I am sure, with NCISA we have individuals serving on our elected Board who hold many and varied views about the current situation. As a non profit making, democratic "mutual" organisation raising money for Norwich City Football Club in return for shares, however, we are restrained by our democracy in commenting unless the views are supported by the majority of our membership. Motions to the Trust AGM later in the year will indicate if there is a perceived problem.

Our aims and beliefs are that NCFC fans should have a say in the running of our football club but that they should be represented by a democratically elected member on the NCFC Board and it is to this end that we continue to purchase shares in the Club and we will be supporting the Resolution at the NCFC AGM to create a further £1M of "ordinary" shares as we were unable to make a share purchase earlier in the year. My personal wish is that we could  have joined NCISA''s ability to raise funds with the democratic procedures inherent in the Trust "movement" to create a seriously large fans shareholdimg in NCFC.

We are not so naive as to believe a fans representative on the Board will happen under current circumstances but there is evidence across the leagues that fans who are "organised" as stakeholders can ultimately have an effect on the future of their club (Sheffield Wednesday is one such example but there are many more in the lower divisions) For information see links from www.ncst.org.uk.

As for regular meetings between the Supporters Trust Board and NCFC Board - I wish

Mike Reynolds, Secretary to the Board of NCFC Supporters Trust

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that very informative post on the Supporters Trust.  It would appear that the Trust has a very passive role in the short term in its relationship with the Club, and one that hopefully will change.

The criticisms that have been made of NCISA and the Supporters Consultative Group (SCG) would appear to have no place being leveled at the current members of the Trust board, although hopefully you will consider your role at the next AGM.

There is a need for people outside the inner circle of the Club custodians (owners,directors, senior executives) to question their actions and seek accountability.  Hopefully one of the groups already in existence, be it NCISA, SCG or the Trust will stand up and meet that role.  If not then maybe the example quoted in the NCISA threads of starting another different offshoot of Norwich City Fans will be required.

Let us not forget that NCISA started because the existing Norwich City Supporters Association was deemed too cozy with the Club heirarchy and therefore ineffective at representing the fans.

The thing about revolution is that it always begats further revolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you a partially correct in saying that the Trust has a very passive role however we do submit questions to the Board on financial issues.

The whole raison d''etre of the supporters trust movement was to challenge the financial impropriety that was taking place in many football clubs, where possible by taking as large as possible shareholding and seeking a democratically elected fan on the Board. At the lower levels of football such as Notts County, Exeter etc the fans either own or control the club and in Europe both Real Madrid and Barcelona are owned by the fans who elect their president! (see  http://www.supporters-direct.org/englandwales/index.htm . To date there has been no evidence of such within NCFC Board. It has not been and never will be the Trust''s role to complain against poor player purchases, poor tactics or poor football management unless they can be shown to becaused by some impropriety. As I said in the previous post I wish we were so well supported that our shareholding alone would persuade the Board of the value of having a democratically elected fan sitting with them, even in a non-executive role (see Neil Doncasters reply to our question to last years Club AGM on our website)

I fear that whilst the SCG is selected by the club from self nominated individuals it will never be the body to seek accountability. As a retired trade unionist (or dinosaur if that is where you are coming from) I firmly believe that football clubs belong firstly to their supporters and the local community and that as such we are all stakeholders in NCFC. Just think how much money fans have given to the club over decades with only thanks in return, if that had been converted into shares the fans would be second only to the majority shareholders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Trust secretary"]

I think you a partially correct in saying that the Trust has a very passive role however we do submit questions to the Board on financial issues.

The whole raison d''etre of the supporters trust movement was to challenge the financial impropriety that was taking place in many football clubs, where possible by taking as large as possible shareholding and seeking a democratically elected fan on the Board. At the lower levels of football such as Notts County, Exeter etc the fans either own or control the club and in Europe both Real Madrid and Barcelona are owned by the fans who elect their president! (see  http://www.supporters-direct.org/englandwales/index.htm . To date there has been no evidence of such within NCFC Board. It has not been and never will be the Trust''s role to complain against poor player purchases, poor tactics or poor football management unless they can be shown to becaused by some impropriety. As I said in the previous post I wish we were so well supported that our shareholding alone would persuade the Board of the value of having a democratically elected fan sitting with them, even in a non-executive role (see Neil Doncasters reply to our question to last years Club AGM on our website)

I fear that whilst the SCG is selected by the club from self nominated individuals it will never be the body to seek accountability. As a retired trade unionist (or dinosaur if that is where you are coming from) I firmly believe that football clubs belong firstly to their supporters and the local community and that as such we are all stakeholders in NCFC. Just think how much money fans have given to the club over decades with only thanks in return, if that had been converted into shares the fans would be second only to the majority shareholders.  

[/quote]

Mike, I don''t think anyone is suggesting financial impropriety, in the sense of directors of the club lining their own pockets.  The issue is whether the board''s investment in non-football related activities has been excessive and has now reached the stage where the tail is wagging the dog, with underinvestment in the squad over successive seasons putting our Championship survival in jeopardy.

Our concerns centre around events which took place in 2002/3.  In a nutshell:

1.  Although it was undoubtedly necessary for the Board to borrow £8m to replace the South Stand, borrowing was only necessary because the hoped-for funds from development of the land behind the River End had not materialised. (2003 Annual Report, p.5 paras 3/4)

2.  Restructuring our pre-existing short term debt of about £6.3m into long term debt would also have been acceptable PROVIDED we had not proceeded to run up another £6m short term debt almost immediately.  And despite the club''s previous track record of land speculation failing to deliver, nearly £3m of this  was spent on the Laurence Scott & Electromotors Land.  To date the club has not been able to sell the land and has also incurred extra costs running into millions to build access roads etc. in order to comply with the terms of ownership.  

4.  The club also borrowed another £3m+ on a short-term basis for the NU corner infill.  Given our existing level of debt it is arguable that this project could and should have waited.

5.  By 2006/7 we had paid off a chunk of the short term debt, £1.1m of it coming from the sale of the hotel land which we were led to believe would be invested in the football side.  But having paid it off, the club took out ANOTHER short-term loan of £1.3m to fund office development. (2007 Annual Report p.34)

6.  Over the past two seasons we have made a profit from selling players, and the profit has been retained rather than being reinvested in the team.

In 1994/5 Robert Chase gambled on deinvesting in the squad just enough to avoid relegation, in order to pay off debts.  He lost, with the result that over 20 years of progress at the club was undone almost overnight.  We don''t want it to happen again, and many of us believe we can see signs that the club is once again heading in the same direction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Trust secretary"]

I think you a partially correct in saying that the Trust has a very passive role however we do submit questions to the Board on financial issues.

The whole raison d''etre of the supporters trust movement was to challenge the financial impropriety that was taking place in many football clubs, where possible by taking as large as possible shareholding and seeking a democratically elected fan on the Board. At the lower levels of football such as Notts County, Exeter etc the fans either own or control the club and in Europe both Real Madrid and Barcelona are owned by the fans who elect their president! (see  http://www.supporters-direct.org/englandwales/index.htm . To date there has been no evidence of such within NCFC Board. It has not been and never will be the Trust''s role to complain against poor player purchases, poor tactics or poor football management unless they can be shown to becaused by some impropriety. As I said in the previous post I wish we were so well supported that our shareholding alone would persuade the Board of the value of having a democratically elected fan sitting with them, even in a non-executive role (see Neil Doncasters reply to our question to last years Club AGM on our website)

I fear that whilst the SCG is selected by the club from self nominated individuals it will never be the body to seek accountability. As a retired trade unionist (or dinosaur if that is where you are coming from) I firmly believe that football clubs belong firstly to their supporters and the local community and that as such we are all stakeholders in NCFC. Just think how much money fans have given to the club over decades with only thanks in return, if that had been converted into shares the fans would be second only to the majority shareholders.  

[/quote]

Mike, I don''t think anyone is suggesting financial impropriety, in the sense of directors of the club lining their own pockets.  The issue is whether the board''s investment in non-football related activities has been excessive and has now reached the stage where the tail is wagging the dog, with underinvestment in the squad over successive seasons putting our Championship survival in jeopardy.

Our concerns centre around events which took place in 2002/3.  In a nutshell:

1.  Although it was undoubtedly necessary for the Board to borrow £8m to replace the South Stand, borrowing was only necessary because the hoped-for funds from development of the land behind the River End had not materialised. (2003 Annual Report, p.5 paras 3/4)

2.  Restructuring our pre-existing short term debt of about £6.3m into long term debt would also have been acceptable PROVIDED we had not proceeded to run up another £6m short term debt almost immediately.  And despite the club''s previous track record of land speculation failing to deliver, nearly £3m of this  was spent on the Laurence Scott & Electromotors Land.  To date the club has not been able to sell the land and has also incurred extra costs running into millions to build access roads etc. in order to comply with the terms of ownership.  

4.  The club also borrowed another £3m+ on a short-term basis for the NU corner infill.  Given our existing level of debt it is arguable that this project could and should have waited.

5.  By 2006/7 we had paid off a chunk of the short term debt, £1.1m of it coming from the sale of the hotel land which we were led to believe would be invested in the football side.  But having paid it off, the club took out ANOTHER short-term loan of £1.3m to fund office development. (2007 Annual Report p.34)

6.  Over the past two seasons we have made a profit from selling players, and the profit has been retained rather than being reinvested in the team.

In 1994/5 Robert Chase gambled on deinvesting in the squad just enough to avoid relegation, in order to pay off debts.  He lost, with the result that over 20 years of progress at the club was undone almost overnight.  We don''t want it to happen again, and many of us believe we can see signs that the club is once again heading in the same direction.

 

 

[/quote] Your numbered comments make for harrowing reading Mystic and sadly it''s just history repeating itself. Yet this board has spent a lot of time publicising the ambition of the club to return and stay in the Premiership, I wonder if they really care as long as they continue to wheel and deal in land issues, hotels etc. What goes on on the pitch is a secondary concern to them and supporters who question them are just a mild irritant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn''t insinuating impropriety at NCFC but there are horror stories regarding developers and lower league clubs.

Sorry, I am not the one to debate financial matters in depth ( can''t even decide which is the best way to fund a new bathroom, debt or deplete liquid assets!) but I have a gut feeling that the commercial side is taking  precedence over the footballing side.

Having said that I have some sympathy in the way the ground has slowly been redeveloped. The mantra of the late 80s/early 90s was football grounds only had a purpose once a fortnight for 9 months of the year and that had to change along with the changes post Hillsborough. Once Delia Smith was on board it was sensible to cash in on her name whilst it retained it''s cachet and invest in the catering faclities and despite a dip last financial year it is a reasonable earner. I think the hotel exercise may well have been driven by the fact that the majority of people attending either Cookery Schools or special Delia named dining events are not local and it was seen an opportunity to expand the use of the conferencing facilities. As for the investment in offices we are back to to earning an income from every square metre of available space on a permanet basis. As for the L & S Testbed and accompanying land I may be wrong but I thought that planning permission had been granted although I believe the new owners of L & S would now like it back.

With all this development going on and the amount of time the Board must spend discussing it one does wonder when they get round to discussing the football. Throughout my working life the one truism has been that once non-experts get the opportunity to create or redevelop, whether it be a research park or a commercial premises or a football club, quite often they ignore the prime reason for its existence.

Sorry that is not very enlightening. Re Robert Chase I suspect the appearance of Carrow Rd and Colney and a degree of club largesse had more to with ambition within the FA than taking the club any further forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Trust secretary"]

Wasn''t insinuating impropriety at NCFC but there are horror stories regarding developers and lower league clubs.

Sorry, I am not the one to debate financial matters in depth ( can''t even decide which is the best way to fund a new bathroom, debt or deplete liquid assets!) but I have a gut feeling that the commercial side is taking  precedence over the footballing side.

Having said that I have some sympathy in the way the ground has slowly been redeveloped. The mantra of the late 80s/early 90s was football grounds only had a purpose once a fortnight for 9 months of the year and that had to change along with the changes post Hillsborough. Once Delia Smith was on board it was sensible to cash in on her name whilst it retained it''s cachet and invest in the catering faclities and despite a dip last financial year it is a reasonable earner. I think the hotel exercise may well have been driven by the fact that the majority of people attending either Cookery Schools or special Delia named dining events are not local and it was seen an opportunity to expand the use of the conferencing facilities. As for the investment in offices we are back to to earning an income from every square metre of available space on a permanet basis. As for the L & S Testbed and accompanying land I may be wrong but I thought that planning permission had been granted although I believe the new owners of L & S would now like it back.

With all this development going on and the amount of time the Board must spend discussing it one does wonder when they get round to discussing the football. Throughout my working life the one truism has been that once non-experts get the opportunity to create or redevelop, whether it be a research park or a commercial premises or a football club, quite often they ignore the prime reason for its existence.

Sorry that is not very enlightening. Re Robert Chase I suspect the appearance of Carrow Rd and Colney and a degree of club largesse had more to with ambition within the FA than taking the club any further forward.

[/quote]

Many thanks Mike.  Regarding the LSE land, my understanding is that it was the club who applied for planning permission, because land is often easier to sell with planning permission attached.  I could be wrong however, let''s hope so.

Have a look at the "Making a killing from Norwich City shares?" thread and let me know what you think.  Since I posted it, I''ve added a bit about the fact that D&M hoovered up all the remaining shares last season (over £1m worth) - see p.41 of the Annual Report - and then whacked up the price by 20% (if the AGM resolution goes through - I intend to vote against it).  If the club were quoted on the stock market wouldn''t this be classed as insider trading?

NCST were unable to buy shares last season because D&M had scoffed the lot.  Now it will cost you 20% more.  I can''t imagine you''re too thrilled about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely the best thing to do is put a moratorium on the purchase of shares this season until a more realistic value is attributed to them?

Just a thought but Surely the most realistic reason for the price hike is not football or off-field performance related but to insulate the duo from any potential hostile takeover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have look later but I must say the Trust will be voting in favour of the share release as we have £5K plus burning a hole in our pocket.

I must say since the shares can''t be traded their only value comes when there is a take-over (Arsenal Supporters Trust own (or did) one share valued at greater than £7k) and their value lies in the fact that potential owners would have to talk to shareholders . Of course our cuurent £15K of shares also increas in nominal value - swings and roundabouts.  Sheff Wed Trust managed to block a take-over (rightly or wrongly) through the size of their shareholding although unless D & M do a "u" turn I can''t see an "unwelcome" takeover taking place.

Re trading loan for shares, does one see signs of D&M / Turner factions ?  Unfortunately not close enough to the seats of power to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Confused Des"]

surely the best thing to do is put a moratorium on the purchase of shares this season until a more realistic value is attributed to them?

Just a thought but Surely the most realistic reason for the price hike is not football or off-field performance related but to insulate the duo from any potential hostile takeover.

[/quote]

Des you''re not confused, you''ve called it spot on imho.  So much for being "open to offers" . . .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Trust secretary"]

Our aims and beliefs are that NCFC fans should have a say in the running of our football club but that they should be represented by a democratically elected member on the NCFC Board and it is to this end that we continue to purchase shares in the Club and we will be supporting the Resolution at the NCFC AGM to create a further £1M of "ordinary" shares as we were unable to make a share purchase earlier in the year. My personal wish is that we could  have joined NCISA''s ability to raise funds with the democratic procedures inherent in the Trust "movement" to create a seriously large fans shareholdimg in NCFC.

[/quote]

 

As the person who asked about widening the share base at the meeting at Diss last night, I was disappointed that my points on making shares available were not responded to by Mike Reynolds.

Michael Wynn Jones made several points in an emotional voice that shares had been available for purchase throughout his involvement.  Indeed no one was interested and if they applied to the Club they would be able to buy them.

Loans were only converted into share capital after making sure that no one wanted to buy them.

So why did the Shareholders'' Trust not buy shares earlier?

Why did the Shareholders'' Trust feel obliged to interrupt the motion at the AGM to publically state they wanted shares?

Why did the Shareholders'' Trust compliment the Board on their openness last night whilst privately complaining that they don''t get the chance to speak to the Board, and bemoaning the lack of an Independent  Shareholder Director?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face, the Trust DID try to buy shares last season but were told that none were available out of the 40,000-odd that were on offer at the start of the season.  It only became apparent when the Annual Report came out in October that all these shares had been taken up by D&M. 

The Trust "interrupted" the AGM as soon as the new share issue had been voted for.  Their purpose was to get in first with their application, to make sure the same thing did not happen again due to a block purchase of the new share issue by someone else.

"Loans were only converted into share capital after making sure that no one wanted to buy them."  I''m not sure if this is your surmise Face, or whether you are quoting something that someone on the board said.  The main function of the Trust is to buy shares and they do so on a regular basis, so were they contacted last season to find out if they wanted any of these shares?  It doesn''t sound like it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry we did not manage to get into the debate on widening the share base but at that time we were at the back of the hall and the accoustics were atrocious. We had earlier done a full interview with Radio Broad;land on the subject but of course it was not "sexy" enough to be broadcast.

Regarding the purchase of shares, we had our aplication rejected earlier in the year but we were assured by Doncaster that further shares would be released through an EGM (at the time we expexted the Club AGM to be held in January as usual). We had planned to present the club with a "giant"cheque at the AGM on the assumption the resolution would be carried  however we were informed that we could only apply and that the Board would have to agree the sale of £5100 of shares to the Trust. This was done immediately after the AGM. I suspect MWJ deems our small but regular purchase of shares as insignificant.

On the final point, I genuinely believe from discussions we have with other supporters trusts that, for good or ill, the one complaint that can''t be lodged against the Board is that , unlike most other Boards under fire, they do not hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...