Following recent resignations and also a meeting of the Trust Board on Monday evening, the Trust Board is now in a position to make the following statement.

At the Trust Board meeting on Monday, 1 member, Stuart Rolley was suspended for the period of four months. Paul Gibbs was warned as to his future conduct after mitigating circumstances that he had acted unknowingly on incorrect information were taken into account. There is outstanding action pending against 2 other members.

The disciplinary case was based on the grounds of conduct detrimental to the interests of the Society by these board members. This relates to breaches of the Trust Board membership policy in relation to unauthorised statements to the local media.

We all offer our most sincere apologies to members for recent problems surrounding the Trust. We acknowledge that this recent period has been very damaging to the credibility of the Trust and the Trust Board. We are very disappointed that some board members have taken their disagreements into the public domain without following the correct and democratic procedures and the principle of collective responsibility.

The Trust Board now wishes to place on record its views on a number of recent matters that are of concern to all Notts supporters.

1. We refute the allegation that the Trust Board has been refused financial information from the Club. A Trust Board meeting was scheduled for 26th February, at which all and additional financial information due to the Trust was to be discussed. The Trust Board has never concluded a formal agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) with the club board on such matter.

This meeting did not take place because of a number of unauthorised statements made to Radio Nottingham (24th February) and the Nottingham Evening Post (25th February). Under these circumstances normal working of the Trust Board became impossible.

On 12th March the Trust received a formal letter from the Club stating that financial information could not be disclosed due to breaches of the confidentially requirements of the Clubs (Blenheim 1862) Shareholders Agreement.

2. It is also not the case that the Trust Board has been kept in the dark over ground safety matters. In fact Board members knew as long ago as June last year that there had been a technical breach of the rule to give the Council 28 days notice for the change of use of the Kop Stand for home supporters at the end of last season. Board members knew that this had been acknowledged by the Club and the Council; no concerns were raised by the Trust Board at the time.

3. It is also not true that the Trust Board has been kept in the dark over legal cases involving the Club. Although the discussion of ongoing legal cases is always difficult particularly when individuals are involved, information was discussed at Board meeting in November, and the final settlement details were due to be discussed at the meeting on 26th February.

4. It has also been alleged that Supporter Director and Club Chairman, John Armstrong-Holmes, has acted improperly in the reporting of potential investment in Notts County to the Trust Board. This is not the case.

For the last two years it has been the public policy of the Trust Board that any offers of investment in the Club should be first dealt with by the Club Board. The Club Board assesses any offers and then if appropriate puts them to shareholders. The Trust Board then passes the offer on to a vote of Trust members. No offers have yet been made to be considered by the Club Board.

The Club Chairman has signed a confidentiality agreement with an interested party. We believe that he has acted in the best interests of the Club in agreeing to this. However, the Chairman did notify the then Trust Chair (Stuart Rolley) that there was interest in September of 2008, and also his successor (Glenn Rolley) following his appointment in October 2008.

When the Club Chairman became aware that leaked news of the investment interest was about to appear in the local media on the 23rd February, he did make a statement late that night to inform the Trust Board before making a statement to the local media.

We believe that he acted properly and in the best interests of the club in this respect. We were very disappointed to read later public statements from former Trust Board members that they did not know anything about this interest or indeed, given the Trust’s stated policy, that they should have known about this.

5. In relation to the meeting at which a motion of no confidence was tabled against John Armstrong-Holmes and Eric Kerry, it has been alleged that this meeting ended with a walk out after they insisted on voting themselves. This is not the case.

Firstly there was no formal notice prior to the meeting that a no confidence motion would be proposed. However as both the vote and voting procedures had been suggested a week earlier in the Evening Post and BBC website, it was only proper that the Trust Secretary should take all necessary advice beforehand so that the meeting may be conducted properly.

There were in fact a number of voting challenges at that meeting that members should be aware of;
• A challenge to the right of Trevor Woolley to vote, as he would miss the start of the meeting, even though he was travelling from holiday in Australia early to attend the meeting.
• A challenge to the right of the Chair to have a casting vote, though this is clearly stated in the rules, and is indeed common practice across a whole number of organisations.

Only at the end of the meeting when the motion was proposed was there a formal challenge to the right of John Armstrong-Holmes and Eric Kerry to vote. It was not for any board member to insist on who can and cannot vote, and the matter was ruled on by the Secretary following legal advice and advice from Supporters Direct.

After the 6 board members walked out, the meeting was still quorate with 8 members remaining, and as the motion had been proposed and seconded it would have been possible to continue with the vote. With hindsight this might have been a good idea, however the Trust rule under which the meeting was called meant that no other business could be dealt with, so in the interests of fairness it was decided to end the meeting at that point.

6. Concerns have been raised that the club has been operating without a business plan.

We are not aware that any club board has adopted a formal business plan since exiting Administration: The Trust Board has always known this. In December John Armstrong-Holmes reported to a Trust Board meeting that the Club Board had begun work on a business plan. He asked for input from the Trust Board, and took a copy of Paul Gibbs’s Community Strategy document for consideration.

7. Members will ask if the Trust has its own Strategy or Plan?

The latest process to produce one was set up in May 2008, with a new Sub-Committee formed. The only recommendations received from this committee so far were in December 2008, which largely consisted of a suggestion that all Trust Board members (then fifteen) become Club Directors. There was clearly no majority support for this idea at the time.

No final report has yet been submitted. We consider that the failure to conclude this process in a reasonable time period contributed to the recent problems. All Trust board members, current and former must share collective responsibility for this.

So what happens now?

The events of the last few months have been a terrible distraction to the Trust, and we are under no illusion that it will have lost credibility with members, Notts supporters, other shareholders and any potential investors.

The rules and procedures of the Trust allow for disagreements to be dealt with by votes and elections in a fair and democratic way. That some board members have acted outside this to the detriment of the Trust is of great and continuing regret. The previous good service of these members is appreciated but should not detract from the seriousness of their actions.

We want the Trust and its members to be a credible participant in the future of Notts County and not to be a part-time pressure group making no contribution of its own, as many others do across the country.

We will work with the Club Board to develop its business plan. The Trust’s Strategy sub-committee will now be disbanded and dealt with the by the whole Trust Board.

Our action plan for the future is as follows:
The Trust Board
1. We will be taking advice from Supporters Direct regarding the size of the board. However we will in the short-term be seeking the co-option of some new board members.
2. We will be amending the Trust Board membership policy to avoid having Trust board members with partners or close relatives working for the Club.

The Board of Notts County Football Club
3. We will nominate a temporary Supporter Director from the Trust Board.
4. Hold the annual Supporter Director elections as scheduled or as soon as possible.
5. We will hold a Trust Special General Meeting to vote on re-ratification of John Armstrong-Holmes and Eric Kerry as Supporter Directors on Tuesday 28th April 2009. With formal notification to be sent out as soon as possible.

Protocol between the Boards of the Trust and the Club
6. We will agree formally on the range and nature of financial information to be disclosed to the Trust as a shareholder, and for this to be put to members for approval.

Elections
7. We will be seeking to bring forward the Trust AGM and Board Elections as soon as possible after the Financial Year end and accounts audit have been completed.

If members are interested in co-option please can they contact the Trust Secretary either by email ( secretary@nottscotrust.org.uk ) or in writing to the Trust Secretary c/o Meadow Lane.

You're all an absolute disgrace and I for one am done with you.

Good by NCFC... RIP

quote:

5. We will hold a Trust Special General Meeting to vote on re-ratification of John Armstrong-Holmes and Eric Kerry as Supporter Directors on Tuesday 28th April 2009. With formal notification to be sent out as soon as possible.

Nigel,

Is this the only 'business' of the SGM that the Trust Board is proposing?

Looking at the Society Rules I note with interest that for a SGM:

a. the issues to be decided are clearly explained; and
b. sufficient information is provided to members to enable rational discussion to take place

I look forward to receiving said information ... as a Trust member I e-mailed yourself and the Trust Secretary some weeks ago some questions which still haven't been answered.

On a related issue is the Trust's call for a SGM an attempt to dilute or deflect attention away from the existing proposition for a SGM? It would seem strange to have a re-ratification meeting* only then to have a vote of no confidence in the two Supporter Directors. Plus organising two SGMs is going to be very costly.

* Does 're-ratify' imply that the ratification process was incorrect first time around?

quote:

Nigel King wrote:
At the Trust Board meeting on Monday, 1 member, Stuart Rolley was suspended for the period of four months. Paul Gibbs was warned as to his future conduct after mitigating circumstances that he had acted unknowingly on incorrect information were taken into account. There is outstanding action pending against 2 other members.

Perhaps someone could clarify for me:

1) Under which Trust rule is Stuart Rolley's suspension permissible?

2) Has he been suspended as a member of the Trust, or just as a member of the Trust board?

Dave,

John Collin tells me hill will reply to you within 24 hours.

I did say you could call me.

Nigel

1 ) Rule 66
2 ) Trust Board