Club caught lying – again!

Fans group pleaded to cluv

Fans group pleaded to cluv

The Newcastle United Supporters Trust held their AGM on Wednesday evening – a meeting which I myself was present at. A number of issues were raised during the AGM and a number of various talking points had arisen. Obviously, one of the more pertinent talking points of the night surrounded NUST’s ban from the UEFA directed Fan’s Forum.

Peter Fanning – NUST’s representative on the Forum, and the ‘culprit’ who published the report – made it quite clear that prior to the Fan’s Forum, multiple discussions were held with the Supporter’s Liaison Officer/club spin doctor Lee Marshall and that he was informed that Newcastle United Supporters Trust intended to publish their own report following the Fan’s Forum as they felt they had a duty to accurately represent how the meeting went. Furthermore, the point was made to Lee that NUST felt that the official club minutes would not suffice in this regard. At no point did Lee Marshall demonstrate any displeasure with this arrangement, nor did he state that it was contrary to the supposed protocol that NUST allegedly breached.

At this juncture it becomes a little bit of he said/she said – with the club stating one side of the argument, and NUST stating the other side, leaving the outside observer to make up their own mind as to who is telling the truth. However, where the club get caught with their pants down, hand in the cookie jar telling porky pies is when the Football Supporters Federation intervened in the situation.

A representative from the FSF was at the AGM last night and gave his views surrounding the NUST ban. Needless to say, the words ‘disproportionate’ and ‘heavy handed’ were mentioned quite a few times. However, what I personally found most interesting is the club’s response to FSF’s letter stating their displeasure at NUST being banned from the Forum, and asking for clarification as to why this was the case – having been in receipt of the letter for over 3 months, the club is now denying that they ever received a letter!

What makes this even more laughable is the fact that not only did the FSF representative personally deliver TWO copies of the letter (1 for Lee Charnley, and 1 for John Irving) and not only did Norman Watson, Chairperson of NUST accompany him in doing so, but he also sent 3 draft copies of the letter to various different factions, who can certify its existence in circulation. For the club to then turn around and deny the letter ever existed is a testament to the lengths the club will go to in covering up, deceiving, and misleading not only the fans of their own club, but also national organisations who represent all fans.

Something that is also worth noting is that the representative from FSF liaised very closely with Lee Marshall in the stages prior to setting up the Fan’s Forum, and the FSF rep believed that Lee was in fact trying his best to make it work. Lee had asked the FSF representative to act as an independent observer during the first Fan’s Forum, but interestingly enough, he was uninvited from the second Fan’s Forum.

Was there any correlation between the FSF being effectively banned from the Forum and their letter of displeasure? If so, then that would corroborate the widespread feeling that the club had been in receipt of this letter all along and were lying when they claimed otherwise.

It is not as if we need any more evidence to suggest that the club, and those whom it employs are liars. We see it every time Pardew tells us he wants to win a cup, or that we are trying hard to sign someone. Or whenever Lee Marshall comes out with a fantasy figure to suggest we were the 2nd/3rd highest spenders in the calendar year in 2012/13. We know they are crooks. We know they are liars. We know they cannot be trusted.

It is just saddening when it happens time and time again.



  1. You know the one thing that really annoys me about this, is that fact that you keep saying ‘the club’ did this, that & the other, whien in fact ‘the club’ who we all love, hasn’t done anything, it’s the ‘administration’ at ‘the club’ who are doing this, that & the other, so please refrain from using the term ‘the club’ when you’re trying to make the ‘administraion’ look bad, as it’s making out that the entire club is at fault, whin in fact it’s on those running the club!!!


  2. im enjoying the peace and quiet the lack of media access has given us , honestly the local rags are a detriment to the team at times , look at keegangate and the ride they took the city on then , its just a couple of blokes out for a paycheck who will print anything to wind up the masses


  3. Load of garbage. Completely unsubstantiated.
    The club has not been “caught” lying “again”.
    You have already established yourself as clueless Ashley-hater so essentially everything after that can just be ignored.
    Now if you were a neutral making this point, well, it would still be garbage.


    1. Unsubstantiated? So the FSF did not send a letter into the club? The club have not denied receiving it? The letter itself had not made its way to various other streams relating to the club and even the PL itself?

      You see, I get off my backside, I go to meetings, I talk to people in these positions and I seek the information which is then disseminated. Yes, I have an agenda, as do most people about most things.

      Be careful who you’re calling clueless though. Your blind assumption that none of what I am saying has been corroborated by these people could leave you open to being labelled a hypocrite.

      Or are you calling everyone who hates Mike Ashley clueless?


  4. Oh dear. You guys want to be treated as genuine representatives of fans and want to take part in an organised and structured forum? Then stop the hate.

    BTW we don’t (as outside observers) have to make up our own minds between the club and NUST over who is telling the truth about NUST releasing the minutes early. Other people who took part on the Forum, while they think a total ban might be “heavy handed” accept that you were to blame. Everyone agreed the protocol about publishing the minutes, and NUST did not comply.

    On the strength of this article, I’m inclined to the view that NUST deliberately ignored the protocol and never had any intention in entering into any genuine dialogue with the club through the Forum. You clearly confirm this, when you say that you agreed to the protocol but Peter Fanning told the club you would publish your own minutes regardless. The excuse given – NUST had a “duty to accurately represent how the meeting went” – means that you went into the Forum with the clear idea in your heads that the minutes produced by the club and agreed with other supporters would NOT accurately represent the discussions. Calling everyone who took part in the process liars before it had even started was hardly the way forward towards open and honest discussions.


    1. I am merely a member of the Trust, not on the board.

      The club banned NUST not because they published their report, but rather because the club wanted their minutes to be the 1st account published.

      The club had said that their report would be up on the Tuesday, NUST’s account did not go up until Wednesday, with the club’s account coming on Thursday – 48 hours after they had stated it would be published.

      While NUST wanted to publish their own account, it was to relay what THEY themselves felt, not a potentially mis-representative view of the club. This caution surrounding the club is surely warranted. There was no distrust of other members of the Forum.

      The FSF, while stating that protocol was breached, also stated that the way to deal with breach of protocol was not to ban NUST, and in no way did a breach of protocol justify banning NUST from the Forum.

      However, instead of formulating your opinion on the strength of one article, how about you read all the statements that have been given on the issue and make an informed decision, as it seems you have failed to do that.


  5. You don’t join a committee, club or organisation, nor go to a meeting at work, and tell the meeting organiser that you won’t be trusting their minutes, and you will be taking and publishing your own, because you think they will “mis-represent” the discussion. It really is as simple as that. Don’t make excuses that there was confusion over the dates. Did NUST ever intend to comply with the protocol?

    What you say shows they did not, and that they told the club this before the minutes were published. So why moan about the consequences?

    You either work within the Forum and trust the people involved, or work outside it. But since you don’t believe anything the club’s representatives say is in any way truthful, then it is clear that you must work outside. Be happy in your decision. You no longer need to engage with people you hate.


    1. The Trust did not make the decision to be banned, nor do they wish to have no communication with the club.

      As the only legitimately constituted fans organisation, NUST has always been willing to discuss and engage openly with the club.

      The Fan’s Forum is 1 method of ensuring communication between the club and its fans. however, it is not the only way. NUST board members, and the chairman himself have tried to get into contact with Lee Marshall.

      As of last night, they had received 1 e-mail and 1 phone call in the past 3 months despite numerous attempts of opening dialogue.

      It is you, not I, who are neglecting facts to form a closed minded opinion.


      1. I don’t constantly express my hatred of the people running the club, nor call their employees and representatives “liars”. In my experience, that’s not an effective way of getting dialogue, and I think you are smart enough to know that is the case.

        So I repeat – if NUST went into the Forum with the view that the people running the Forum were liars, and going to mis-represent the discussions and lie in the minutes, then this was only going to end-up one way.

        If my experience leads me to that single conclusion, then I must be “close minded”. I’m content with that, I don’t seek to force my views on everyone else, and I don’t abuse those who don’t share my views.


        1. I am not claiming that NUST went into the Forum thinking the club were liars. Rather, they wanted to operate in a fashion that would best represent how they felt the meeting went to their members. That is not unreasonable in my view.

          Also, I would like to point out that your views have not been dismissed, nor have you been personally abused and this martyr act is somewhat unbecoming of someone of your intelligence.


  6. Ciaran – I really don’t see what the club would gain by lying about the letter. Just because the letter was personally delivered does not mean it reached it’s recipient. It could still be in a secretary’s drawer somewhere as presumably the club receives hundreds of letters per week.


What do you think? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s