What do the Supporters Trust do?

[Nomadic Canary 0]

The Norwich City Supporter''s Trust seems to have been formed with a notion that they could somehow safeguard the club against becoming the next Portsmouth. That seems fair enough in terms of intent but what real purpose does it serve in the here and now?

Until recently there was an aim to place a fan on the board; for the Trust to have a representative of the fans as a whole sat at the table with the guys tasked to run the club. An idealistic concept that is completely impractical. How could anyone ever decide who should be that person? We have all sorts and shapes and sizes of supporters but I don''t know a single one that could represent the fans in general. How can you please everybody? How can you provide a voice that represents all the people? Look at last season and the divide created by hapless Hughton, at best any fans representative in such a scenario is going to represent one half of the support and alienate/ignore/dismiss the other. That will all come down to this superfans opinion and who says that their opinion is anymore valid than yours or mine? Perhaps the idea is that the Trust will vote prior to board meetings in order that an opinion can be created democratically prior to the event? Again, this would only ever represent a portion of the people (Trust members) that have assumed the position (I never voted for them) to represent the fans as a whole. Perhaps a more salient point is that we already have fans on the board in Delia, the Michaels and Fry. Not only are they fans but they, with the exception of Fry, have experience of running a multi-million pound football business. I''m not sure that Norwich have another fan - trust member or not - that boasts that on their CV which begs the question why ANY fan would think that they, as an individual or as a representative of a group, should have some sort of input at that level of the business.

It seems that the Trust have made a conscious decision to distance themselves from that concept. Perhaps that''s a realisation that the idea is flawed, perhaps it''s an acceptance that they are never going to accumulate the level of shares required to even make it an idea that would warrant any serious form of consideration.

If the Trust have accepted that the Board is beyond them, what is their ''goal'' now? Their aim is to accrue shares to make the fans one of the biggest shareholders in the club but that is already the case - I doubt that there are many shareholders of Norwich City that support another club or are apathetic towards football. The shares themselves, while given a nominal value, are worthless to anyone but a fan and as is the norm with such a commodity, are only worth what somebody is willing to pay. I doubt anyone would EVER see a return of th quoted £100 a pop. Maybe it''s to cobble together enough shares to be regarded as a voice or mouthpiece for the fans but that brings us full circle to the obvious flaws associated with sticking a fan on the board. The trust will never be able to accurately represent all the fans. I reckon that there is a degree of acceptance with regard to that too. They''ve tended to remain politically neutral, not involving themselves in any in/out shenanigans or coming out and making any statements that would ruffle any feathers one way or the other.

With the way things have been over the last few years, maybe that too is inevitable. Perhaps they don''t feel that there is any need to pass comment while things are going well - to a point - and the truth will out if things took a sizable dip. However, relatively recent history (St Andrews Hall and last season with clueless) suggest that the Trust will remain safely below the parapet even when things are deemed to be on a downturn. So when will/would they pipe up and be heard? In fairness, it isn''t necessarily a negative that they have remained largely silent, the road to ruin is littered with the opinions of folk that thought they knew best but at what point do the trust make their shareholding heard? If it''s not when things are going well and not when things are going badly, then when? In the event of a proposed takeover? Is it''s very existence a "just-in-case" insurance policy against a Gaydamak or an Evans? If that is the case then what exactly are they and their 1300 shares going to do? They don''t have a voice now so any amount of tubthumping and foot-stamping should a fake-sheikh come along will seem a bit after the Lord Mayors Show; that''s why we need to know what they are and what they stand for and what they do NOW.

On one Norwich forum there is a pretty open exchange between members of that forum and the trust secretary. In this conversation it seems that the aim is to accumulate as many shares as possible to have a respected input but in the same breath, it seems that there is an acceptance that they will struggle to accrue the necessary shares to have such an input. Perhaps one of the reasons is that, as the secretary confirms, many members of the Trust Board retain their own shareholding. Apparently this allows the Trust to have a broader representation at the AGM, except it doesn''t does it? These people are at the AGM representing their own shares, not those of the Trust, and, more importantly, who on earth is going to leave or gift shares or even pay a £10 annual payment to a group who has the aim of raising as many shares as possible but who''s Board members don''t have enough belief in the message they represent to gift their own personal shares?

There''s also some inference that they are involved in other wider footballing matters such as safe standing and ticket-pricing. What isn''t clear is in what capacity they are involved. By their own admission they have a relatively small shareholding and don''t seem to have a voice that is audible to the club. Presumably this makes their input one of limited value, sure they can offer an opinion on such matters but having no influence at all at decision level, it''s not really any more valuable than asking you, me or the racists thrown out at Wolves. We''re all City fans after all.

So, what do they do? What is their reason for being? Is there a purpose being served or is it little more than a social for fans with ideas of grandeur, for those that think they know best? If they truly have aspirations of providing some form of fans representation, it might be an idea to appear more inclusive to the fan on the street. There''s an impression of elitist aloofness at present and that has to work against them. I want to know a lot more before I put my ten pound in that''s for sure.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

They do seem now to have dropped the aim of getting a supporter on the board. At least from their public mission statement. I am not a member but I never saw that ambition as flawed, in the sense that such a fan would be impossible to find. Supporter groups at other clubs, including Swansea City, have managed to select a suitable person. I don''t see why that would prove impossible at Norwich City.Nor have I ever got the impression that the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust was elitist. As to the shares, they are worthless under most circumstances, but not all. In the event of an outside takeover anyone who paid £25 or £30 might well (depending on which division we were in) make a tidy profit, should they want to. And might even be forced to, whether they wanted to or not. Whether that is a reason for members of the Supporters'' Trust keeping their individual holdings I couldn''t say.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Supporter groups at other clubs, including Swansea City, have managed to select a suitable person. I don''t see why that would prove impossible at Norwich City.[/quote]Purps, Swansea are a truly unique club and certainly not comparable Norwich City, or any other club for that matter. After their Australian owner threatened to put them into bankruptcy in 2001, they were eventually sold for £1. The following year they only avoided relegation to the conference on the last day of the season. It was around this time the Trust was formed and they raised £50,000 to buy a seat on the new board which was, by this time, run by a consortium. And then in 2005 that eureka moment, the council built them the Liberty Stadium and decided to charge them a peppercorn rent.Since then it''s been up, up, and still more up, so finding a suitable person would not have been difficult.It remains to be seen how suitable that person is when the inevitable tide turns....

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Supporter groups at other clubs, including Swansea City, have managed to select a suitable person. I don''t see why that would prove impossible at Norwich City.[/quote]Purps, Swansea are a truly unique club and certainly not comparable Norwich City, or any other club for that matter. After their Australian owner threatened to put them into bankruptcy in 2001, they were eventually sold for £1. The following year they only avoided relegation to the conference on the last day of the season. It was around this time the Trust was formed and they raised £50,000 to buy a seat on the new board which was, by this time, run by a consortium. And then in 2005 that eureka moment, the council built them the Liberty Stadium and decided to charge them a peppercorn rent.Since then it''s been up, up, and still more up, so finding a suitable person would not have been difficult.It remains to be seen how suitable that person is when the inevitable tide turns....

[/quote]Lapps, I understand the unusual process by which Swansea ended up with a supporter-director, but that doesn''t alter the fact that the Trust was able to nominate someone deemed suitable. You might argue that the supporter-director had to learn all about running a football club, but then that applied to every current members of the NCFC board bar McNally. They all had to pick it up as they went along.At a slight tangent, one interesting idea from Germany is that you have a two-tier structure, with a board of professionals and a supervisory board of, for want of a better word, amateurs, including supporters. The latter would have veto powers over some crucial areas, such as the club''s heritage, including ownership and location of the ground, the club colours and name and nickname.Some years ago, when the NCFC Trust was still publicly aiming for a supporter-director on the board, I said that idea would only make sense if they had a  kind of golden-share veto on such issues, but if that power resided in a supervisory board that would be an adequate alternative solution.

[The Butler 0]

If, as we are often told, Delia and Michael do not expect their money back, when they finally retire they could donate a portion of their shares to the trust.

That way having a "suppporter" on the board would not be a pipe dream.

It would also help towards keeping the club as a local one.

[Crafty Canary 495]

More likely their shares will be left in trust with clearly defined terms and conditions that will allow their vision for the club to continue. I really don''t see them leaving them to a pointless amateur organisation run as a vanity project for the Trust'' board members.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="The Butler"]

If, as we are often told, Delia and Michael do not expect their money back, when they finally retire they could donate a portion of their shares to the trust.

That way having a "suppporter" on the board would not be a pipe dream.

It would also help towards keeping the club as a local one.

[/quote]TB, I would surprised if they didn''t leave in place some kind of mechanism or arrangement to safeguard the club''s heritage and its future. Whether that would be by way of a supporter-director or some other system is a question. I am dubious about the merits of a supporter-director unless they have real power, by way of something like a golden-share veto, on a few crucial heritage issues.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Butler"]

If, as we are often told, Delia and Michael do not expect their money back, when they finally retire they could donate a portion of their shares to the trust.

That way having a "suppporter" on the board would not be a pipe dream.

It would also help towards keeping the club as a local one.

[/quote]TB, I would surprised if they didn''t leave in place some kind of mechanism or arrangement to safeguard the club''s heritage and its future. Whether that would be by way of a supporter-director or some other system is a question. I am dubious about the merits of a supporter-director unless they have real power, by way of something like a golden-share veto, on a few crucial heritage issues.[/quote]

 

Indeed Purple. In fact my flabber would be well and truly gasted if there is not a succession plan already in place. I am not the slightest bit concerned about what may or may not happen. Our club''s brilliant owners and the current board won''t let us down. I am 100% confident that whatever is planned will be in the best interests of our club and just as importantly us supporters.

 

Apparently there is a belief that the share price has risen to £100 a pop to give Smith and Jones a return on their investment. I don''t believe that for one moment. They have never taken money out to profit from our club. The opposite has always been the case. I can''t believe they''d change now and think it''s far more likely that they become even more altruistic in the days to come.

 

I reckon we are lucky to have had Geoffrey Watling then Delia and Michael backing our club over such a difficult period. Because of them we don''t have to concern ourselves with unwanted takeovers and associated profiteering the like of which we can laugh at just a few miles down the a140.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Butler"]

If, as we are often told, Delia and Michael do not expect their money back, when they finally retire they could donate a portion of their shares to the trust.

That way having a "suppporter" on the board would not be a pipe dream.

It would also help towards keeping the club as a local one.

[/quote]TB, I would surprised if they didn''t leave in place some kind of mechanism or arrangement to safeguard the club''s heritage and its future. Whether that would be by way of a supporter-director or some other system is a question. I am dubious about the merits of a supporter-director unless they have real power, by way of something like a golden-share veto, on a few crucial heritage issues.[/quote]

 

Indeed Purple. In fact my flabber would be well and truly gasted if there is not a succession plan already in place. I am not the slightest bit concerned about what may or may not happen. Our club''s brilliant owners and the current board won''t let us down. I am 100% confident that whatever is planned will be in the best interests of our club and just as importantly us supporters.

 

Apparently there is a belief that the share price has risen to £100 a pop to give Smith and Jones a return on their investment. I don''t believe that for one moment. They have never taken money out to profit from our club. The opposite has always been the case. I can''t believe they''d change now and think it''s far more likely that they become even more altruistic in the days to come.

 

I reckon we are lucky to have had Geoffrey Watling then Delia and Michael backing our club over such a difficult period. Because of them we don''t have to concern ourselves with unwanted takeovers and associated profiteering the like of which we can laugh at just a few miles down the a140.

 

 

[/quote]Quite, nutty. I don''t believe that either. Certainly not in the sense of that being the main motivation. What happened, in the wake of promotion to the Premier League, was that the directors revalued the club, using a measure known as Ebitda. The old ordinary share price gave a value of only £18m, which was on the low side for a PL club. As a comparison, Birmingham City, then in the PL, was valued at £82m when it was bought by Carson Yeung.I imagine our club''s revaluation via Ebitda came up with a figure around £60m, because the new share price of £100 (which may have been rounded up a bit) gives a value for the club of £62m.That is not to say £100 will be stuck to by the directors if we stay in the Championship for a while. As I understand it there is an annual assessment of the club''s value. And even if £100 remains the official price that is not to say the club would stick to it in the event of an outside takeover. The selling price might well be lower, although quite possibly above whatever Smith and Jones paid for their shares. So they might benefit but, to repeat, I don''t believe that was the reason for the upgraded share price.

[gabba 0]

I''m none too hopeful that a supporters trust which has Delia''s chief propagandist Mick Dennis as president is going to do any good. If people really want to take control of their club then they need to take to the streets around the ground after games and demand that Delia hand ownership over to the fans. She''s had a good innings, but unfortunately it''s been one disaster after another, and we''ve failed to make any real progress since she took over.

[crabbycanary 2]

Wow, you REALLY haven''t got a life , have you?