Notts County Supporters’ Trust – Fans’ Forum
Open meeting at Meadow Lane, Thursday 24th January

Panel:

Geoff Davey (GD) Chief Executive, Notts County Football Club; John Armstrong-Holmes (JAH) Chairman, Notts County Football Club and Supporter Director, Notts County Supporters Trust; Stuart Rolley (SR) Chairman, Notts County Supporters Trust; Philip French (PF)Chief Executive, Supporters Direct; Kevin Rye (KR)Communications Executive, Supporters Direct

SR opened the forum by introducing the panel on the top table, outlining that GD and JAH were present to answer club-related questions and issues. He went on to say that following the excellent feedback from fans that attended the AGM who heard Sean Hamil from Supporters Direct speak, the Trust were once again keen for representatives from the organisation to be present. He was delighted that both Philip French and Kevin Rye were there and that they would be able to give a view on issues relating to supporters’ trusts and fan involvement.

SR went on to talk about the Jimmy Sirrel tribute evening and that limited edition prints of the portrait were available, before highlighting a couple of forthcoming events – the Magpies Beer Festival (31st January – 3rd February) and the Lifeline quiz (4th March).

The first question from the floor asked the panel under what circumstances the Trust would sell the Club and give up majority shareholding.

JAH responded by stressing that the Trust as majority shareholders weren’t in a position to ‘sell the Club’ but that any decisions regarding the sale of shares would require the agreement of the other shareholders, due to the arrangement set out in the Shareholders Agreement. He went on to talk about the complexities of the ground lease, where three parties are involved – the City Council, Haydn Green’s Estate and the Football Club – so that if there were any discussions to sell the ground they would also need the agreement of the parties involved.

When pressed about the Club needing investment in order to move forward, JAH outlined the financial context, with a succession of owners looking to sell Notts County but attracting little interest. During the period when Peter Storrie and Albert Scardino were at the helm, debts around the £6 million mark were amassed which plunged the Club into administration.

Moving onto the stories of Colin Hancock’s reported interest in investing a seven figure sum into Notts County, JAH expressed his surprise that Mr Hancock had approached a radio phone-in programme to announce this. He stressed that the proper way of doing things would have been to contact the Chairman or the Chief Executive with any offer, who would then be responsible for informing the Club Board of Directors. At that point if the Board felt that it was in the best interests of the Football Club they would then take the proposal to the shareholders. In the case of the Supporters Trust, this would involve seeking consultation with the Trust membership.

JAH went on to say that he had known Colin Hancock for several years and refuted reports in the press that Mr Hancock had walked away from a consortium interested in buying Notts County following the Trust’s intentions to own the Football Club. This JAH said was untrue and that the Trust had been set up to ensure that supporters had a voice and that the status of majority shareholder had only happened around a year ago, following the wishes of Haydn Green and the will of the Trust membership who had voted on the issue.

When asked to comment on reports on Radio Nottingham that a meeting with Colin Hancock had taken place, JAH replied by stressing that this was not the case. A short phone conversation had occurred where JAH stressed that he was happy to meet ‘anytime and any place’ and was awaiting a phone call from Mr Hancock who had been busy with other commitments to agree on a meeting date. JAH finished by saying that he had read reports in the local press that Mr Hancock would be writing to him as Chairman and that he was awaiting the letter which he would read with interest.

The next two questions from the floor touched on Adam Pearson’s reported interest in Notts County and asked whether any offers had been tabled, either then or now from any interested party.

SR responded by stating unequivocally that no bid – whether formal or informal – had been made by Mr Pearson. This had been stressed by the Trust Board repeatedly, and that the Trust Board had been unhappy at the reports on Radio Nottingham which implied a bid of £3 million had been turned down. This led to an official complaint being made to the BBC and a retraction statement being read out on the Matchtalk programme.

JAH went on to say that no offers of any kind had been made. He voiced concerns that such rumours were damaging to the Club and had created divisions amongst supporters.

In a later question JAH was also asked to comment on reports that he had been in talks with another interested party. In response to this JAH said that as Chairman of Notts County he talks to a lot of people and that he and the Club Board were looking at a number of ways of developing income streams. JAH went on to say that the Club and the Trust were looking at ways of encouraging supporters to Meadow Lane, and that they had been instrumental in the £10 ticket offer when there were 3 home games in succession. They were also receptive to ideas from supporters, giving the example of the Charlie season ticket offer, of which they had sold 50.

He stressed however that there was no rich benefactor or millionaire waiting in the wings. Performances on the pitch meanwhile meant that the Club was perceived to be unattractive by some, giving the example that the Commercial Department were finding it a challenge to sell all of the advertising hoardings around the ground.

Later on in the meeting when Colin Slater was present in the audience, in response to reports he had made on Radio Nottingham, Colin said that he wouldn’t name the interested party as he didn’t have the individual’s permission, but that he had passed on Mr Hancock’s contact details so that they could meet. Mr Slater stressed that since reporting on the Pies in 1959 that he believed that he only ever acted in the best interests of the Football Club.

One of the recurring themes that cropped up in the questions was that of the relationship between the Trust/Club and the local media, and a perception that stories – predominantly on Radio Nottingham – had damaged the Trust’s reputation.

Speaking specifically in relation to Adam Pearson’s reported interest, JAH said that he had spoken to Colin Slater for 45 minutes advising him that there was no substance to the allegations that a bid had been tabled. He went on to agree that relations with Mr Slater were strained and that the stories relating to ‘the bid that never was’ had done enormous damage to the Football Club.

On this issue, towards the end of the meeting Colin Slater was asked to give his views on the relations between Radio Nottingham and the Supporters Trust. Colin said that he was constrained by what he could say because of a meeting happening tomorrow (Friday) between the Trust and managers at the radio station, but that he hoped the meeting would be amicable and constructive. Mr Slater went on to say that with regards to the Adam Pearson story that he believed he had fully checked the facts, and felt that the story was credible. With hindsight he admitted that this wasn’t in fact the case and that the apology made on Radio Nottingham came as much from him as the radio station.

JAH said that he was grateful to hear the apology and gave his thanks to Colin Slater for being so honest.

Looking to the future, the panel were asked to give assurances that any offers of investment would be properly scrutinised and that the individual’s background in the game would be looked at fully.

In response to this JAH on behalf of the Club and the Trust stressed that the future of the Football Club would not be risked, and that proper due diligence tests would be followed. He went on to outline that if Notts County didn’t exist then Meadow Lane – which is located in an area identified for regeneration - would be worth a considerable amount of money as part of a property deal. It was important therefore that the Trust as custodians of the Football Club acted responsibly and with the long-term future of the Club at heart.

JAH and GD went on to stress that the Football Club was in a healthy state financially and that the debts (in the form of loans from the shareholders, and the Trust) which amounted to a 6 figure sum were manageable. From talks with other Chairmen and Directors at other clubs the playing budget at Meadow Lane was in the top six in Division Two (MK Dons, Darlington and Peterborough were cited as being significantly more) and that it was hoped with the management team of Ian McParland and David Kevin a squad could be assembled that would be challenging for promotion next season.

With regards looking to the future PF cited examples from Brentford, Stockport County and Chesterfield as to how supporters should have a say in shaping the Club’s long-term future. At Brentford he said that the Trust had vastly reduced the Club’s debts of £5 million and were looking to develop a new community stadium. At Stockport, where the Club is Trust-owned, they had built new income streams, taking a responsible long-term view to managing the Football Club. At Chesterfield meanwhile, the Trust had been instrumental in saving the Club but had since relinquished some of its shares to an investor whilst retaining boardroom representation and a ‘golden share’ to ensure supporters would have a say in any major decisions affecting the Club.

One of the other themes of the fans’ forum was questions about individual players such as the signing of Guy Branston who had only featured for 45 minutes and the possibility of bringing in a striker.

JAH said that the Club Board had taken the view that they would support the management team wherever possible to freshen up the squad and bring new players in, both with a view to improving performances now and building for next season.

It was confirmed that Leon Knight had been one of Ian McParland’s targets and that money had been made available to sign him, but that he had chosen to join Wycombe, which was nearer to his home. Andrew Rooney had also been looked at but decided to lengthen his loan period at Chesterfield from Stoke City because they could guarantee he would play more matches. JAH also stressed that it was important that any new striker would need to be better than those already at Meadow Lane, as well as looking to building a more successful strike-force for next season.

With regards speculation that Danny Crow would be signing from Peterborough, JAH said that he was recovering from injury, had played in a reserves team fixture that week and that it would take some time to build his match fitness.

On the subject of Branston both GD and JAH stressed that their role was to support the manager and to respect his decisions. The management team had spoken to Peterborough who had released him and felt that Branston – who had a good reputation in the lower leagues - would be able to strengthen the defence. With hindsight the loan signing hadn’t worked out and this wasn’t helped but some confusion at the Football League about the number of bookings he was on. It was believed however that the other signings had been positive and that Ian McParland and David Kevan’s excellent network of contacts in the game, including the Premier League, would help attract good players.

With regards Pearce JAH said that an agreement had been made with Birmingham City for him to extend his loan period, but that he had been recalled to take part in an FA Youth Cup fixture for the Blues.

Continuing on the theme of strengthening the playing squad, the panel was asked to respond to Ian McParland’s comments about needing £2-3 million to take the Club forward. JAH replied by stressing that it was every manager’s wish to want more money and to bring in new players. However, spending huge sums of money (especially when the Club hasn’t got those sorts of figures available) was no guarantee to success. Hereford, Accrington Stanley and Morecombe were all given as examples of Clubs with lower playing budgets, but who were all performing well on the field due to long periods of stability, patience and good financial management.

This point was echoed by an e-mail from a Trust member that the Board had received, which stressed that the Club didn’t need investment to move forward. Rather, it was inconsistencies on the pitch and the need for more commitment from the players to move the Club up the table.

Moving onto a couple of issues relating specifically to the Trust, in response to a question about relations between the Supporters Trust and fans SR said that these were mixed. What the Trust was endeavouring to do was improve lines of communication, so that it could engender a positive two-way dialogue with supporters. SR gave the example of the Trust office which is open every match-day where fans can speak to members of the Trust Board and representatives from the Club Board. SR stressed that this arrangement where fans can walk in - without an appointment – and speak face-to-face with Directors was pretty unusual, and along with the forum being an open meeting, helped to illustrate the strides being made to improve relations.

SR and JAH also said that preliminary discussions were underway with regards planning for the Club’s 150th anniversary, and that they would be working with the City Council to look at how the celebrations could be integrated with or happen alongside the London Olympics in 2012.

In response to questions about the agreement with Nottingham Rugby Club, GD and JAH informed the audience that the current arrangement ends this season but that talks were ongoing about extending this.

In the remaining questions the panel talked about the state of the PA system - which is being looked at – and wanting to improve the match-day experience. The 18 month old PA system was bought from Highfield Road and when it was first installed worked okay. However the speakers at the front of the stands have since been blown - the ones at the rear are fine. One the Directors is using his contacts to get the system looked at.

Trevor Woolley said that he wanted to make pre-match more exciting and that he would be taking over from Graham Moran, who would be a hard act to follow. JAH said that the speaker system was unacceptable and that it would be addressed.

It was also revealed that plans to celebrate Jimmy Sirrel’s 86th birthday, which coincides with the Grimsby fixture, were underway. With regards next season JAH said that a number of players were out of contract, with others contracted until the end of the 08/09 season. It was down to the management team to plan ahead and that had been working extremely hard identifying possible targets. JAH also said that he envisaged Tommy Johnson carrying on supporting Ian and David and that he was really keen to help Notts County.

SR closed the fans’ forum by thanking the panel for being so candid in their responses, and for everyone for attending.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nigel King,