Present: Jeff Moore, Keri Usherwood, Nigel King, Eric Kerry, John Collin, Gareth Marklew, Glenn Rolley

Just a few days after the announcement that Mr Jeff Moore would be taking over as the new Notts. County Chairman, members of the Trust Board had a brief introductory meeting with the new Chairman.

Mr Moore said he is a keen, long term supporter of Notts. County and this showed itself throughout the meeting.

The Trust Board explained that the Trust was formed in 2003 and is an Industrial and Provident Society (Notts. County Supporters Ltd.). It said its purpose is to make sure that supporters are involved in the Club. The season just finished was a difficult one in many ways but the Trust felt that progress was made, particularly on the financial front.

Mr Moore said that it is far too early for him to have a detailed view of the Football Club. He said that he has met the staff and has just begun to look at the various aspects of the running of the Club.

With regard to his own experience, he said that he is Chief Executive of EMDA (East Midlands Development Agency) and that this is a full time job. EMDA are involved in a wide range of economic development activity including the direct development of former coalfield sites. Mr Moore said that his employers have allowed him to take on the Chairmanship on the understanding that it is not remunerated and does not interfere with his employment.

As part of his job, Mr Moore is a Board Member of Nottingham Regeneration Ltd., a local Urban Regeneration Company, one of whose projects is Nottingham Waterside. In response to a question, Mr Moore said that there are no plans to redevelop the Meadow Lane ground that he is aware of.

In response to another question from the Trust Board, Mr Moore said that he recognises the massive stake that the Trust holds in Notts County and will give whatever help he can to the Trust and its members.

Mr Moore said that he does not underestimate the potential challenges involved in running Notts County Football Club. He said that he will make up his own mind about the things that need to be done and will then tackle them in “bite-sized” pieces.

Is that it?

He's going to "help" us? We're the shareholders, we elected him, he should be asking us what we want to change and then determining how to bring it about.

This passive relationship with the club is short-changing the Trust membership.

Thanks for the update, although I think it would have been more useful to convey to members the process of how Mr Moore was appointed, what skills and experience he has that are relevant to the running of a football club, and what his role actually entails. Sorry to be so critical but I think there was far more substance in his recent interview with the Evening Post.

Given that the Trust was involved in Jeff Moore's appointment as Chairman, and that he is a 'keen, long term supporter' I am a bit surprised that it was necessary to outline the Trust's history and objectives to him. I take it despite his commitment to help the Trust that he isn't actually a member?

Finally, is Mr Moore planning on having regular meetings (say, monthly) with the Trust Board, and more broadly the Club's shareholders? If our club is to move forward, in my opinion it is paramount that supporters are actively encouraged and empowered to have a say in how our club is managed.

Hi Dave.

Personally, I think it was very important that the new Chairman had the Trust's aims and objectives put clearly to him at the earliest opportunity. It's important that we, as shareholders, outline our expectations and aspirations as early as possible together with highlighting areas where the Trust can provide assistance and support. This also provided a context for a number of discussion points at the meeting. If there were any misunderstandings or gaps in knowledge this should now be clarified which surely can only be a good thing?

It's probably more appropriate for Jeff Moore to say whether or not he is a member of the Trust - DPA and all that.

In terms of more detailed information about Jeff Moore for members, the best way to do this is probably through a more detailed article in the next Trust newsletter. By this time, Jeff Moore will have been in his role more than a couple of days and it will be something which can be read by all trust members including those who don't have access to the internet.

I agree with you about regular meetings (I'm sure you'll agree that the Trust meeting with Directors last month was well received)and this is something we will definitely be pursuing. This will give members a chance to question Jeff Moore and other Directors directly.

Cheers

Keri

Hi Phil.

I don't understand what you mean by a "passive relationship".

Over the past few weeks the Trust has:

1). Organised a forum to allow Trust members to question the new Directors
2). Approached the Club to get the deadline for early purchase on Season Tickets extended
3). Held meetings with the Chief Executive raising points from Trust members and asking for action to be taken
4). Strongly set out the Trust's view that a repeat of this season's performances on the pitch must not be repeated next season.

During this year the Trust has called on the Club to strengthen the Board of Directors and has played an active role alongside the Club in achieving just that.

The Trust has also called for new avenue of income generation to be explored. Today's news that Nottingham RFC are considering moving to Meadow Lane on a long term basis is welcome.

The Trust has repeatedly made our view clear to the Club that ticket pricing policy is vital in attracting fans back to Meadow Lane. That's why we are pleased with the freeze on Season Ticket prices and the free season ticket prices for under 11's.

The Trust has also repeatedly demanded that the Club plots a course to financial stability which will enable the Club to grow over the coming seasons from a sustainable base. Understandably, this has not always been popular with some fans, especially in light of the desperate finale to the season we have just experienced.

Sorry if I've misunderstood what you mean but I think there are a lot of areas where the Trust has been active rather than passive. Let me know if you have other exampls though and we'll do our best to follow them up.

Cheers

Keri

Keri,

Thanks for the reply. I'll tie this thread together with the related "Questions for Jeff Moore" thread for clarity and to save a bit of bandwidth, if I may?

Perhaps I should say at first that I am happy with Jeff Moore as chairman and the two other directors, but not so happy with the manner of their appointment. In an ideal world, the membership (as shareholders) of the Trust would have had a chance to quiz the prospective directors beforehand and then, if deemed necessary, there would be a vote to elect the candidates to the board. In practice, however, members were only told of the appointments after the fact. I think this indicates that the club board regards the Trust membership as superannuated fans rather than shareholders and, therefore, owners of the club.

What I would like to see is the board of the Trust determining what objectives that the members want for the club and then agreeing strategies to achieve these objectives with the directors. This ties in with the point I raised on the "meet the directors" thread, where I suggested that they should be coming to the meetings and telling us what they've done and what they intend to do.

Finally, the club AGM. If we were shareholders in a normal company we would be invited to attend the AGM and have our say(not least in the election of the directors). I know last year's club (Blenheim1862?) AGM was held at about this time, but only, I suspect, because I was on the Trust Board. I don't think I'm breaking the confidentiality rules by saying that I di ask whether Trust Members would be allowed to attend the AGM, but it wasn't thought pratical.

I'm not sure how coherent that all is, it's very early. I'll proof read it later and correct any nonsensical bits, but I hope the general gist is clear. I acknowledge the great things the Trust has achieved, I'm proud to have played a part in some of them, but that doesn't mean it should rest on its laurels. I know changing the relationship between the club and its customers will be challenging, but not as great a challenge as raising a quarter of a million pounds in twelve weeks, surely? £10 to be a "passive friend" of the football club or £10 to be a shareholder? I know which I think represents real value for money.

Phil,

These directors are appointed by the Club Board, not by the Trust. Are you suggesting we should have had a vote of members to decide the vote of our Supporter-Director on their appointment?

As we've already announced, for the position of the Trust's Supporter-Director there will be an election by Trust members.

I realised that you were referring to the AGM (if not in part) in the question you asked us to ask Mr Moore. I think you've been a bit unfair on your judgement of the meeting with Mr Moore. He had only just accepted the position as Chairman and agreed to meet us at the earliest possible opportunity, even before he had held his first Board meeting. You can’t expect him to have produced an agenda and details of the club AGM at that meeting. We will be meeting him again and of course the subject of the Club AGM will be raised. Whatever happens with the AGM we will continue to hold meetings where club directors and officials are open to question from supporters, as we did do only a few weeks ago. The new Supporter-Director, when elected, will actively be representing members’ views and interests on the club board.

"A date hasn't yet been agreed for the club AGM" is an acceptable answer to my question. I wasn't angry at Jeff Moore, I didn't expect him to have produced an agenda for the AGM, I was miffed that the Trust Board seemed to be ignoring my question.

As I understand it, directors are appointed to run a company by the shareholders, yet we, who are sort-of shareholders only know who has been appointed after the event. Ultimately, I think the fans of Notts County should elect the club board, until we can achieve that the Trust should strive to make the process as open and inclusive as possible.

Firstly, thanks Keri and Nigel for the responses - it is encouraging to see the messageboard being used for dialogue between members and the Trust Board.

However, I am concerned that the Trust appears to be manouvering towards a more passive or reactionary position, where us - the members - despite being labelled 'shareholders' actually have very few rights. Phil has already alluded to the fact that the first Trust members learnt about Jeff Moore's appointment as Chairman, or that the Board was being strengthened by three new Directors, was on the official Club website. I am still none the wiser as to the process of their appointment, whether they support fan involvement/ownership, if they are making any financial investment, or indeed what area of responsibility they have within the Club. As a former Board member, I appreciate the practical difficulties of ensuring members are actively involved, but striving for greater transparency and information sharing are, in my view, realistic and achievable goals.

In response to Nigel's earlier posting (on the other thread - questions for Jeff Moore), I am startled that the Trust Board doesn't actually know if the move towards having one representative on an eight-man Board is a positive step forward. Does an enlarged Board mean that the Trust's voice has become diluted or is this outweighed by the skills and finance (?) that the new Directors bring? Or perhaps it doesn't actually matter if all contentious decisions are made depending on the size of shareholding? Some clarity would be appreciated.

Keri, in your posting you highlight a number of areas where the Trust has been involved, refuting the suggestion that the Trust is 'passive'. Do you see the Trust's role via the Supporter Director to be primarily about communicating fans/members' concerns? As the Club's second largest shareholder, what will the Trust do if this season's performances on the pitch are repeated next season? What steps are being taken to review the Club's pay-on-the-day pricing policy? The decision to freeze season ticket prices and to offer free season tickets for under 11s is encouraging, but are there any plans to try and attract the 'floating' supporter?

If the Trust Board is committed to getting its members involved as shareholders then what steps are being taken towards this? The forum with the new Directors was welcome - are there plans to increase the regularity of such events to help foster a two-way dialogue between members and the Club Board? Previously the views of members and non-members were actively sought through an annual fans' survey - what has happened to this?

Finally, to return to Phil's earlier posting I would contend that attempting to change the relationship between the Club and its customers represents a massive challenge. Historically, the culture within the Club could be characterised as inward-looking and unco-operative, where simple tasks such as buying a ticket/trying to organise a function becomes hard work. Progress is undoubtedly being made, but there is still a long, long way to go.

Hi Dave,

Phew! Lot's of questions. I'll try to answer as many as I can. It is good though to get some good discussion going on this Board.

You raise a good point near the end about the fans survey. We have discussed this and it is definitely something that needs doing. One difficulty is that there are a lot of things at the moment that also need doing - the election for the new Supporter-Director, sorting out memberships in time for renewals, trying to get a few need fundraising ideas off the ground, trying to make preparations for things like the Open day, getting a new website up and running, working with the Club on ideas for enhanced community activities etc, etc. We are always looking for extra help. Can I be really cheeky and ask if it's something you might be prepared to take on?

Your point about the Directors - the Trust was involved, through the Supporter-Director in the appointment process. As the Trust, we have always said that one aim was to make the Club transparent, so there's a good argument that announcements like this which relate to the Club's Board of Directors comes from the Club itself. There was however, a statement from the Trust at the same time. In addition, a Trsut orgainsed forum did give members the opportunity to quiz the new Directors directly on any questions they liked including the areas you have referred to in your posting.

At it's next meeting, the Trust Board will be discussing the issue of an additional Trust Director. In my previous reply, I didn't think it was right for me to pre-empt those discussions. However, you are right to point out that the Trust's shareholding of 30.2% will not be affected. As you are aware, this gives the Trust a major influence on any strategic issues which affect the Club.

My view of the Trust Director role is that it should be the same as any other Director of the Club. I would like to see the Trust Director have, for example, a specific area of responsibility on the Club Board. Again, this is something we will be discussing at the next Trust board meeting. It most certainly should not be in any sense a "passive" role.

Representatives of the Trust Board meet regularly with the club's Chief Executive. What the Club is Planning to do to attract "floating" fans will definitely be on the agenda together with ideas from Trust members on how this might be achieved. I would encourage any Trust members who have thoughts or suggestions on this to please get in touch.

I agree there is still a long way to go in terms of progress but we can still acknowledge that bit by bit, improvements are being made.

Cheers

Keri