 |
Notts County Supporters Trust |
|
Minutes of Meeting - 15th January 2003Minutes of Proposed Notts County Supporters Trust Meeting 15 January 2003 Banqueting Suite, Notts County FC, Meadow Lane, Nottingham Main Panel:
John Hill -
Derby County Rams Trust Master Of Ceremonies: Trevor Woolley Minutes: Nigel King, Jason Turner. Attendance: 350 The meeting commenced at 7:50pm. 1) Trevor Woolley opened the meeting. He gave a brief introduction as to that the meeting was and was not about, and then introduced the first speaker, Simon Binns from Supporters Direct. 2) Simon Binns told the meeting about the history of Supporters Direct and the Supporters Trust movement. Supporters Direct was set up following the report of the governments Football Task Force about 2 years ago. The first Supporters Trust was set up 11 years ago at Northampton Town. Brian Lomax was the first chairman of the trust and eventually joined the board of Northampton Town as a Trust representative. Brian Lomax then setup and now runs Supporters Direct. When Supporters Direct began there were 6 Trusts, if a Notts County Trust is formed there will now be 72 in existence. Simon explained that Supporters Direct do not charge for their services. They advise trusts and help them set up. A Supporters Trust is an inclusive and democratic organisation, based on one member one vote. Simon told the meeting that currently 38 Trusts have a stake in their club and 26 Trusts have a director with executive powers on their clubs boards. In forming a Trust, Notts County would be joining a nationwide community. Supporters Direct want to make fans part of the game. A Supporters Trust is a member lead organisation that is credible and strong. 3) The next speaker was John Hill from Derby County Rams Trust. John started by telling the meeting that the Derby Trust were very grateful to be ask to attend. He explained the history of the Derby County Rams Trust. John told the meeting that football was undergoing a sea-change. Fans now realised that the game belonged to them. Fans were standing up and reclaiming the game. He said that we are all in it together, a football family. John explained how members from his trust attended meetings of the Leicester trust and vice versa. At the first meeting of the Derby Trust in October 2002 there were 130 people were present. John told how he went to that first meeting and sat at the back. He realised there was something in it and joined in. He said that a trust was a credible group of fans, a collective, and urged all those present to get behind the trust. John went to the first Rams meeting, volunteered and became the Secretary. Having started in October with 130 members by November 2002 they had 450 members. He noted that if everyone present joined the Notts Trust it would already be over half way to beating the Rams Trust for members. John ended by saying that all members of the Rams Trust were fully committed to the success of the trust. Even with 450 members they had already had meetings with both the Chairman and Finance Director and Derby County to let them know the views of the fans. 4) The next speaker was Richard Willis from York City Supporters Trust. He started by asking the question 'Why are we here?'. Richard told the meeting that football was not working, it was in crisis. There is now no room for chairman who are on ego trips and rich executives who think they can do what they like. In December 2001 the then Chairman of York City (Douglas Craig) threatened to close the club down. The club is currently in administration and if a buyer is not found by the next day it will go out of business. The first to do so since Maidstone. However there were presently two possible buyers for the club. Richard explained that when the club was first threatened there were two options. Do nothing or do something. They decided to do something and had the idea to form a trust. The York City Supporters Trust was inclusive and democratic with one member one vote. Prior to the formation of the trust there had been a few separate groups of fans active at the club, but these had been cliques. Now all the fans worked together with one voice. Previously there was no dialogue with the supporters at York City but the trust had changed that. Richard then asked 'Why get involved?'. He said that it was a myth that a trust was a clique, everyone has something to give. He outlined the problems in football. Expenditure was too high and income was too low. Club chairmen have failed. No longer can players expect to earn high wages. At York City the top earning play was on £3000 per week, which means that 600 people have to turn up just to pay this one players wages, this was not sustainable. Richard also said that it was a myth that if you had no money to give that you could not be involved in the trust. You can give your time and your skills. All kinds of people can be involved in a supporters trust whether it be students, housewives, retired people. It’s open to anyone and everyone, but being involved in the supporters trust involves long hours in which the pay is zero. He finished by saying that whatever happens at York at least they've tried to do something. He urged those present no to go to their graves wishing they could have done something for Notts County. Everyone should fill in the registration of interest forms. 5) The final main speaker was John Thornhill from the Proposed Notts County Supporters Trust. John informed the meeting of the current situation at Notts County. John started by saying that the meeting was not about blame and looking back. It was about moving forward and making something happen. John explained that the current situation at Notts was grim. £5 million are owed to creditors, losses are running at £120,000 per month. Expenditure was far greater than revenue. Since the administration savings had been made however these savings would be offset by the administrator’s fees. The club need £1/2 million to get to the end of the season, £1.5 million to get to the end of next season. One of the problems the club has is the fact that we have players on long contracts and because of the collapse of the transfer market we have no saleable assets in terms of players. In addition there was also the loss of a sizeable income stream in ITV Digital. John asked 'Why would anyone invest ing Notts County?'. He told the meeting that the future of Notts County is in property. The current lease on the ground, which has 70 years left to run, requires that a football club has to play there. The club needs an asset, Albert Scardino has been trying to negotiate a new lease with the Council. John said that Notts County had a lot of friends at the City Council. They were moving towards creating a new lease which would enable new investors to come in. John told the meeting that he had tried to get information from Albert Scardino and Paul Finnity (The Administrator). There are currently three possible outcomes for the club. i) External investment from new owners. There are possibly five groups interested. One of these is a strong possibility and is coming close to putting in an offer. ii) Albert Scardino, who is currently trying to secure additional investment sources. iii) Liquidation or receivership He went on to say that at present the fans were powerless. John said that a phone call he'd received last Monday made him realise how serious the situation was. He asked 'What can we do?' Everyone cares about Notts County. Some fans only ever meet up at the match. People don't go to Meadow Lane for the quality of the football, they go because it's community. He said that it was important to protect this. John continued by explaining the role of the Supporters Trust. The Trust will communicate with the club. For the last twenty years the club has had what he called a Mushroom Culture. Supporters had been kept in the dark and fed rubbish. Now the Supporters Trust can be a communication channel, recognised by a club that wants to communicate with supporters. The Supporters Trust would not be about money at this stage. £150,000 was raised last year but that amount of money would not solve the situation now. What the Trust does depends on the outcome of the three options. In the past supporters have never been consulted. Chairmen, managers and players come and go but the fans are still here. If either of the first two options happen, Albert continues or there are new owners, we can work with them. If the third option (Liquidation) we have to be prepared to make the club survive. If the worse comes to the worse we even have to look at what AFC Wimbledon have done. John finished by saying the we need a trust, he urged people to come forward and make the club survive, and finally he asked that people at the meeting ask questions. 6) Trevor Woolley announced that there would be a short break to enable refreshments to be taken from the Bar. He also announced that the panel would be answering written questions after the break and that forms were available at the front on which questions could be submitted. 7) There was a 15 minute break. 8) Trevor Woolley introduced the Question and Answer session. He read out the questions or groups of related questions and put them to the panel members. Q1. 'Does the Trust see any positive future under the chair of Albert Scardino?'. Richard Willis from York City Supporters Trust explained that a Supporters Trust had to be totally independent of the Club. Q2. 'What is the current involvement of Mr Pavis, and what is he owed?' from Mr Harris. John Thornhill said that Mr Pavis did not want to see the club go under, and if there was any future involvement from him he would want to be in the background. Peter Dennis replied that Mr Pavis was currently owed £1million and still owned 1/3 of the clubs shares. Q3. A group of questions from Nigel Nattrass, Paul Sawyer and Mr White :- 'What sort of things are the we likely to vote on?' - Simon Binns said that members would vote on the Trust committee. An AGM to elect the committee had to be held within 6 months of the formation of the Trust. 'Is the overall aim to get a seat on the board because if not how else are we going to get heard'? - Simon Binns replied that it was up to the Trust what it's aims would be. The Trust would have to identify it's long and short term aims. The Manchester United Supporters Trust want to have a board member. To do this at their club they are buying up shares in the club. This may take then 20 years to achieve. 'With one member, one vote how do you propose to deal with 'Splinter Groups' inside the membership?' - Simon Binns answered by says that members should elect a board to take things forward. Currently there are 12-14 people who are a temporary working party and that these people have temporary taken on the trust on everyone’s behalf. There will be a vote to elect members to the board and it will be based on the majority of votes. Voting is to be carried out in exactly the same way as we elect our prime minister. The board members must represent the views of the members. It is possible to have ballots on individual issues. Q4. 'Please could you expand on what is meant by development of the ground if the lease can be changed by the City Council? Does this mean moving ground?' from Greg, Darren and Mark. Peter Dennis replied that this was not necessarily so. The current lease is restrictive, but the land is valuable. If the club does not play football then the council take back the lease. The Administrator has been trying to negotiate a longer lease with development rights. Peter gave some hypothetical examples of what this would mean. The club could build on part of the ground, say a Hotel on the Spion Kop car park or even perhaps acquire more land from the council, say behind the Jimmy Sirrell stand as the County Road was to be re-routed under the Waterside Redevelopment plans. The club would be working in partnership with the council. Q5. 'Why does a Trust have more credibility than the Supporters Club?', 'Are football clubs bound to liaise with Trusts or is it purely a good will gesture?' Richard Willis replied that a Supporters Trust and a Supporters Club are complimentary. A supporter’s trust has a much higher number of members and therefore it has a much bigger voice. At York City the Trust has 2000 members and the Supporters Club has 100. On the second question he said no, the club weren’t bound to liaise. It depends on the Chairman. It’s all about forming a relationship with the chairman. The Trust should aim to stay positive, other Trusts would offer help we should learn from their mistakes. Simon Binns said that he worked with 30 clubs in his role at Supporters Direct. He stated that Supporters Trust and Supporters Clubs were different arms of the same body, but they had different structures. He also said that a lot of Supporters Clubs were in the pocket of their clubs, Millwall for example. Supporters Trusts are properly regulated by the government. It was best if the Supporters Trust and Supporters Club could run along side each other. On the second question he said that if clubs had nothing to hide they would talk to the Supporters Trust. John Hill also answered this question. He told the meeting that a Derby County the Supporters Trust and Supporters Club co-exist with different roles to play. The Trust has a legal constitution with clearly stated aims and objectives. He then read out the 8 objectives of the Rams Trust. The Rams Trust was getting the club to listen to what the fans wanted. The fans are entitled to have a say. Q6. 'Who are the major creditors?' and 'Who was the phone call from that you (i.e. John) received last Monday and do you see them as a reliable source?' John Thornhill told the meeting that the major creditors were Albert Scardino £1.7million and Derek Pavis with £1 million. There was also the Inland Revenue, VAT and the Bank, these would be preferential creditors in the event of liquidation. John also said that if came to liquidation the vultures would be circling, but the Trust would be a player. In response to the second question John said the phone call was from Albert Scardino. Q7. 'If the new owner restructured the club and a share issue came about would the Trust look at Investment thru' purchase of shares?' from Lesley, Dave and Adam. Simon Binns told the meeting that a Supporters Trust was judged on it's membership, although to have a lot of money is good. Leicester have 3000 members. The Brentford Trust is now half way to raising £1million to buy the club. Chesterfield Trust has 3000 members and now run the club. He added that membership is power, with members, funding will come. Q8. 'There appears to be lots of red tape and bureaucracy involved, what happens on a day to day basis and what positive effects have been achieved elsewhere?' - Simon Binns replied that at Southend the Trust has taken over the youth and development side of club affairs because they have the right people on board with the right qualifications. The Plymouth Trust runs the club shop and split the takings 50/50 with the club. Q9. 'How would the Trust be incorporated? If an IPS why is this the best option?' from Richard. Simon Binns replied that a Trust is incorporated as an Industrial and Provident Society or IPS. In an IPS members are protected, they have limited liability i.e. their £1 share. It's not a good idea for Trusts to be a charity as there are VAT and Tax issues. Finally he added that tat Supporters Direct were going to become and IPS themselves. Q10. 'How long will the Administrator be given by the court to make a decision on any offer?' from Colin. John Thornhill replied that the administrator has been at the club for 7 months and to date has not yet been paid. He will therefore be under pressure from his employers and needs to get the situation sorted out quickly. Q11. 'If Trusts can be so influential, why wasn't this looked at last year when we where asked to give money to the club?'. John Thornhill replied that in hindsight it would have been a good thing to set it up but with SNAG getting involved in the Reg Brealey take over and the campaign against this then the supporters trust was not a priority. There has to be a defining moment to start things off. In this case it was a phone that clarified the gravity of the situation. SNAG did look at this 2 years ago, but it takes a lot of work. Now a group of people have come together to give it a push and set the wheels in motion. Q12. 'Is a debt free AFC Wimbledon scenario such a bad thing for Notts?'. Simon Binns replied that the Club is not the Company. The Club is in peoples hearts. Forming a Trust is an historic moment. Q13. John Armstrong-Holmes introduced himself. He said that he had been listening to the details of the Trust and was thinking it was a good idea. His question was that he was worried about the phone call John Thornhill had received from Albert Scardino. Was the Trust just going to be raising money for Albert Scardino? John Thornhill replied that the phone call was a catalyst to do something. The Trust was not about money. There are a lot of skills available amongst the supporters. The Trust was about fans working for the good of the club. Q14. Terry asked that as there are two clubs in Nottingham would this make it difficult for the Trust to operate? Simon Binns replied that this should not be a problem. He said that there were two clubs in Sheffield. Wednesday have a Trust and United do not. 9) John Thornhill then told the meeting what would be happening next. He said that this was not about a few but the community of Notts County. He then called for a vote to ask the Temporary Committee who had set up the meeting to go forward an create a Notts County Supporters Trust. There was a show of hands. Of all those present (approx 350) one voted against, the rest voted for. John ended the meeting by asking those present with skills who could help the Trust to come forward. He asked that everyone fill in the registration of interest forms, adding that this commits people to nothing. The meeting ended at 10:30pm |
|
© Notts County
Supporters Ltd 2003-2006 • Notts County Supporters Limited is registered as
Industrial and Provident Society No. 29559 R. |