Cod Almighty | Diary

DJs will be taxed until there is no earthly way they can earn more money than the bands whose records they all play

7 November 2017

Transpennine Diary writes: The Mariners Trust held its AGM last week the day after Diz Day. The minutes were published yesterday. I've pulled a few highlights for you.

A fans' forum will be held in the New Year. The club bars have gone from strength to strength, with income having gone up year on year since the trust took over. The trust has made a loss for the year of £7,258. The bulk of the money it makes goes to GTFC as it fulfils its obligations under the agreement which sees it pay £30,000 in return for a place on the board of the football club. Including wages and heating/lighting costs, around £62,000 has been paid to the club in the last 12 months.

The losses come from a drop in membership fees as members failed to renew after their Operation Promotion membership lapsed. Sales of merchandise were also lower. I feel uncomfortable about the club expecting £30,000 per annum in return for the trust's seat on the board. Crawley's trust pays £4,000; some pay nothing. I understand that the club could run its own bars, leaving the trust to find its own independent income streams, but I think I'd feel more comfortable with that.

There are now eight board members on the trust, with four vacancies. There were no nominations and therefore no election required. The trust was disappointed with a lack of people coming forward to join, and understandably so. Only 22 members attended the meeting including board members.

There was a general discussion following the formal AGM. The chair Jon Wood said he was sickened by the way our fans were treated at Stevenage and by the subsequent efforts of Stevenage FC to smear our fans and make excuses. He was bitterly disappointed with the whitewash final report but said the trust would do everything it could to help any supporter who wished to take this further. Members of the trust board spent over 100 hours collectively going down every route possible to try and get a positive result. I think their efforts should be applauded.

The meeting considered allegations that the Stevenage stewards acted upon information supplied by Grimsby Town FC. This was denied by Kristine Green, Alan Rutter and Paul Savage. There was also speculation over changes to the EFL's rules: is the only reason Stevenage escaped punishment because there wasn't a rule in place regarding asking women to show their bras, so therefore it couldn't be broken? This might be one positive outcome from the trust's protest.

There was general agreement that the trust would lead a full boycott of the fixture next season and would encourage fans of other clubs to do the same, hitting Stevenage FC in the pocket. The trust was disappointed that there had been no response from GTFC and Jon Wood would be raising it at the club's next board meeting.

I had a bit of a debate on Twitter last night with a few people about the boycott of the game at Stevenage next season. I don't think it was the best next step, not least of which because it could be 18 months or more away. I also feel that the trust should have openly asked for the views of all members before taking such a step. I think boycotts of games are a weapon that should be used very sparingly. Boycotts have the potential to divide fans. I fully support the #BTeamBoycott, but it has created a divide.

OK, what would I do instead? (Apologies if the trust has tried any of these already.)

Skimmed

Since #bragate, Stevenage have played Lincoln, Crawley, Morecambe, Port Vale, Accrington, FGR and Nantwich. Do some of these teams have active supporters' trusts? Could ours ask them what it was like? Could our excellent unpaid supporters' liaison officer ask theirs?

Notts, Coventry, Swindon, Wycombe and Chesterfield will visit before the year's out. Could we talk to them? Is there a south-east based trust member who could go to one of these games and observe? (They play Swindon in the FA Cup when we unfortunately don't play my choice of second round tie, bloody Bradford away.)

If the evidence suggests that there are no longer problems with invasive searches, should we continue the protest? Would the wider membership of the trust give the board a clear mandate to continue giving the protest priority, if there doesn't appear to be a problem? If this is the case, I wouldn't back a boycott but I'd want the trust and SLO to plan our next visit very carefully.

Semi-skimmed

I'm a bit puzzled by the silence from GTFC on the Stevenage incidents. Some of the most loyal supporters were affected by it. Why has it been left to the volunteers of the trust and to the SLO? Would any other commercial concern treat their most important people like this? Silence and abdication of responsibility appear to be the current choice of the club directors. Maybe it's time to ask for some gentle action/support from them?

We could:

• put information boards and flyers in the Osmond Stand, describing the incident to visiting fans, asking for feedback
• mount a joint protest with a willing visiting club to BP in the near future, or even a twin protest home and away
• mount 'Football is not a crime' #bragate protest promotional boards in places visible to the TV cameras, such as floodlight pylons or on banners within Blundell Park
• ask that the club write publicly to other League 2 clubs asking for feedback and support
• ask that the club write publicly to the Football League asking for answers.

If any of these actions were to be shrouded in confidentiality, it might make them worthless.

Full fat

The current planned protest might take place if we don't get promoted and/or (hopefully both) Stevenage don't get relegated. There's a much earlier opportunity. On 30 March Stevenage travel to Blundell Park.

Fans could mount a visible protest outside Blundell Park, targeting the Directors of Stevenage Football Club. Victims of #bragate could ask to speak to them upon arrival. The press could be invited. GTFC directors could be asked to refuse to join the Stevenage directors for pre-match hospitality, or to refuse to take up their seats in the directors' box. Supporters could mount a visible and vocal protest before the game and at half time.

Again, if any of the above are proposed to the club board and the response is silence, it sends a message to supporters. Would that message be a red line for the trust on it continuing to have a representative on the club board of directors?

I started this diary with some concerning news about an apparent lack of interest in the trust from members. How might this be fixed? I feel that one of the main secrets of the success of Operation Promotion was the ease of involvement that the online crowdfunder website offered to fans. Everyone could feel involved, and show they were involved socially, with only a few minutes effort and a couple of quid.

The trust board has done important and sterling work on #bragate and on #bteamboycott but both are by their very nature negative. There will always rightly be occasions when the trust needs to campaign on behalf of supporters, and so it should. But I believe that the amount of time ploughed into this sort of campiagn should be referred back to the wider membership at some point for several reasons. Not least of these is that I believe serious questions should be asked about whether it should be our profitable club that gets its paid staff to do this work, not volunteers.

The strength of the trust is in its members and getting them to actively renew their membership annually. I think that the trust should plan two or three projects per year from a menu of perhaps 10, proposed by members over the summer. The members should vote for which projects they want the trust to run and at that time offer their time and/or cash to support their chosen projects. If none of the projects are sufficiently supported, leave the money in the bank and the trust board members' time to themselves.

The trust should investigate the many online tools that are available to help engage members of associations and trusts. Many of these organisations are national or international in nature, so it would help with engaging exiles and busy locals alike.

Meetings to which only 20 or 30 people show up are disheartening – but I don't believe they say the members don't care: I believe the trust simply needs to find different ways of engaging members. There are currently 2,100 of them. Meetings are necessary but wide engagement should be the priority.

Two simple ways of polling members' views or simply encouraging discussion would be  members-only Twitter and Facebook accounts. I'd offer the opportunity to join these only to people renewing memberships. It's all about simple regular engagement. (There would still be public-facing social media for the trust.)

While I'm here, I'll share a couple of half crazy ideas that the trust might (not) fancy looking at: temporarily acquiring the Imp car park for a pop-up bar, and organising a special train to a 2018 away game. Did you see that programme on Channel 4 last night about racist yobs on trains?

See you at Exeter?