Who To Trust?

It seems sadly typical of Newcastle United that a trust of supporters who had set their sights on one day buying the club have found themselves beset by the same sort of lack of organisation and miscommunication that has characterised the club they one day aim to run. The Newcastle United Supporters Trust have been noticeable by their absence in the fall out from Chris Hughton’s sacking last week, leading many to question its current role as a viable supporters’ group, let alone its longer term ambitious to assume ownership of Newcastle United.

One problem with the Supporters’ Trust is its origins and its aims as it stands, neither of which were ever sold convincingly to Newcastle fans. The group actually began as a supporters’ group, but its formation, in the immediate wake of Kevin Keegan’s departure from St. James’ Park, made it, for all intents and purposes, a protest group. A protest group cannot comfortably fulfil the remit of a supporter’s group, which, by necessity, must have close links to the club. Steve Kell, who runs the Arsenal Supporters’ group, argues that “politicising these things is asking for trouble. The club don’t want to see an agenda.” A group that had been formed in sole and direct opposition to a move by the club was never going to establish a working relationship with that club, particularly one as communication phobic as Newcastle.
But for whatever reason, those pushing the idea of the Supporters’ Club seemed keen to elevate their role even before properly explaining to others what it was.

There early days were marked by a series of crass statements. When asked what they would like to say to perspective new owners they responded “we can be nice, or we can be your worst enemy”. Given that another of their early statements criticised the teenagers that had been interviewed on Sky Sports News in the wake of Keegan’s exit- in a statement that struck another confused note; are these teenagers not Newcastle fans deserving of representation too?- they seemed awfully keen themselves to speak on behalf of others without first seeking a consensus.

Then very little. The flurry of protests died down, and though there was a series of events, very little appeared to be being decided. Protests were not organised, opinions not sought. Members, who paid ten pounds to register, were sent next to nothing in the way of communication. There was a bewildering incident when their website printed dubious financial information about Ashley’s investment in the club. When asked to clarify their figures by a member via email there was no response, and the page was quickly removed.

Their objectives became even further muddled when the idea to buy the club was mooted-in reality, it should have stayed mooted, a long term objective rather than an immediate must. Instead the newly elected chairman dedicated all his time to what always looked a pipe dream. Further, this idea clouded its role as a supporters’ club, many accusing the now trust of being fretful of alienating perspective investment business partners by showing discontent with any element of Ashley’s ownership. Again, to look at Arsenal, the trust and supporters’ club are kept separate.

Looking from afar is one thing, more worrying for the NUST must be the amount of internal problems they are being forced to deal with. Bill Corcoron, a highly respected member of the board who was there for the club’s inception left recently, citing the trust’s lack of communication with its members:

“At a recent training event, ran by James Mathie of Supporters Direct, he advocated regular members meetings, publication of Board agenda and minutes and a humble, listening attitude from the Board to our members. I completely agree, but others seem determined to avoid members questions describing some members as "rabble rousers".
Which speaks to a trust ill at ease with a proportion of the people they purport to represent. Corcoron also makes mention of people “leaving the trust in droves”.

And if that didn’t tell the trust they were losing support, surely the most damning verdict came from a poster on the toontastic message board, who, in response to the question ‘what could be worse than having Mike Ashley running our football club?’ answered, ‘having NUST running it’.