county1959 wrote:

whoareya wrote:

county1959 wrote:


Yes all that came from the same convo in Hogarths.

Is there a poster initiation process I should have gone through?!

Is that Hogarths Newport or Connacht ?

Sorry lost me.

He's trying to imply you are me. I shouldn't worry about it.

whoareya wrote:

county1959 wrote:


Yes all that came from the same convo in Hogarths.

Is there a poster initiation process I should have gone through?!

Is that Hogarths Newport or Connacht ?

No pub called Hogwarts here mate, You really are getting nervous aren't you?

mad norm wrote:Does a slight balls up with a bit of scoff warrant 7 pages?

"Newport County goes into administration due to a lack of sandwiches"

FFFFFFFFS

"Newport County ... The Club That Wouldn't Die"

Unless of course the grub was late and The Board won't disclose who's got the buffet contract !!!

Couldn't make it up ......

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:

county1959 wrote:


Yes all that came from the same convo in Hogarths.

Is there a poster initiation process I should have gone through?!

Is that Hogarths Newport or Connacht ?

No pub called Hogwarts here mate, You really are getting nervous aren't you?

Your the one backtracking on the catering - can smell it from here.

Corpaboy wrote:

mad norm wrote:Does a slight balls up with a bit of scoff warrant 7 pages?

"Newport County goes into administration due to a lack of sandwiches"

FFFFFFFFS

"Newport County ... The Club That Wouldn't Die"

Unless of course the grub was late and The Board won't disclose who's got the buffet contract !!!

Couldn't make it up ......

This isn't about the grub being late. As I was told in a PM when the abuse gets this bad it's usually a sign that something stinks.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
This isn't about the grub being late.

Quite. As you have said earlier

"This isn't about sandwiches, it's about the awarding of contracts. It's about how our money is spent."

So for the third time of asking, what money is this that you consider to be ours?

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
This isn't about the grub being late.

Quite. As you have said earlier

"This isn't about sandwiches, it's about the awarding of contracts. It's about how our money is spent."

So for the third time of asking, what money is this that you consider to be ours?

As a fans owned club my view is that the assets of the club are held in trust for the fans.

Now of course one has to understand the difference between equity and equitable title and legal title. I'm sure that if you invest in a really good text book you'll be able to grasp the concept. But to assist you knowing equity trumps law is a good start.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
This isn't about the grub being late. As I was told in a PM when the abuse gets this bad it's usually a sign that something stinks.

Or it could just be that you've made a complete tit of yourself and you deserve to be ridiculed for it.

Ironsider wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
This isn't about the grub being late. As I was told in a PM when the abuse gets this bad it's usually a sign that something stinks.

Or it could just be that you've made a complete tit of yourself and you deserve to be ridiculed for it.

Could be.

You wish

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
This isn't about the grub being late.

Quite. As you have said earlier

"This isn't about sandwiches, it's about the awarding of contracts. It's about how our money is spent."

So for the third time of asking, what money is this that you consider to be ours?

As a fans owned club my view is that the assets of the club are held in trust for the fans.

Now of course one has to understand the difference between equity and equitable title and legal title. I'm sure that if you invest in a really good text book you'll be able to grasp the concept. But to assist you knowing equity trumps law is a good start.

You're OK, I still remember a few of the general principles although it was a while back that I studied them.

Interesting concept.

Is it your view that the assets of the club being held in trust for the fans is more akin to a moral obligation on the trust or has it been explicitly documented?

Amberexile wrote:
You're OK, I still remember a few of the general principles although it was a while back that I studied them.

Interesting concept.

Is it your view that the assets of the club being held in trust for the fans is more akin to a moral obligation on the trust or has it been explicitly documented?

Okay let's forget our arguments and begin again.

First this is only my view and it is open to argument. The idea that I can be sure I am right or that anyone can be sure I'm wrong is a non starter.

So I believe that we need to start with the intentions of the parties going back to the trust takeover.

I would argue that it was the intentions of those who bought into the trust to take the ownership of Newport County via a trust.

Therefore I think that a court would likely conclude that a trust exists. To use technical language regardless of any technical arguments to the contrary the court would construe a trust. It's called quite simply and you might think logically a constructive trust. And such trusts are frequently found to exist.

It follows that the trust will have trustees and beneficiaries. The trustees will hold the legal title and will have a duty known as a fiduciary duty to act always in the best interests of the beneficiaries. And to be seen so to do.

In my view the directors of the trust and Newport County AFC would be held to be the trusties and the beneficiaries under the trust would be the supporters of Newport County.

In terms the directors would be expected to act with always in the best interests of the club because in doing so they would be acting in the best interests of the supporters. The directors have a duty to make decisions but of course have discretion. What is reasonable and what is not reasonable is where disputes can arise. However this area of dispute is fairly narrow. If say the directors appointed a manager of the team it would be difficult to argue that the appointment was not in the best interests of the club if say you appointed the ex manager of York City as opposed to the ex manager of Aldershot. A margin of appreciation if you like.

If contracts for catering or coach travel were were given after a tendering process it would be difficult to show that was not in the interests of the beneficiaries. If on the other hand there was no protocol and it were discovered that a friend or relation of a trustee/director had received the contract, in my view it would be difficult to argue that said director(s) had acted in a responsible manner.

There is of course a margin of appreciation. So contracts of less than £1,000 would probably not require a tendering process. Contracts of £10,000 or more almost certainly would.

As I say, my view and I welcome constructive comments. No pun intended.

In my view, you make a logical argument right up to the point about a tender process. In my experience tenders are often skewed at the outset to favour the preferred bidder(s) giving an appearance of probity that does not truly exist.

Amberexile wrote:In my view, you make a logical argument right up to the point about a tender process. In my experience tenders are often skewed at the outset to favour the preferred bidder(s) giving an appearance of probity that does not truly exist.

That I don't disagree with.

But I remain hopeful. As Trustees the board of directors are accountable to the fans as beneficiaries. The more fans question the board the more the board become accountable. The tactics of mass bullying don't work on me. In fact they inspire me to carry on. I see now another poster intends to go along and ask my questions at the marquee.

I will continue to publish replies from the club to my emails. If the club reply sensibly then the directors will build trust. If they continue to reply with the utter non sense my first email solicited from them suspicion will grow.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:In my view, you make a logical argument right up to the point about a tender process. In my experience tenders are often skewed at the outset to favour the preferred bidder(s) giving an appearance of probity that does not truly exist.

That I don't disagree with.

But I remain hopeful. As Trustees the board of directors are accountable to the fans as beneficiaries. The more fans question the board the more the board become accountable. The tactics of mass bullying don't work on me. In fact they inspire me to carry on. I see now another poster intends to go along and ask my questions at the marquee.

I will continue to publish replies from the club to my emails. If the club reply sensibly then the directors will build trust. If they continue to reply with the utter non sense my first email solicited from them suspicion will grow.

At least you now understand why there can be no satisfactory answers to your questions. Personally I believe there are bigger fish to fry for any trust member dissatisfied with club governance.

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:In my view, you make a logical argument right up to the point about a tender process. In my experience tenders are often skewed at the outset to favour the preferred bidder(s) giving an appearance of probity that does not truly exist.

That I don't disagree with.

But I remain hopeful. As Trustees the board of directors are accountable to the fans as beneficiaries. The more fans question the board the more the board become accountable. The tactics of mass bullying don't work on me. In fact they inspire me to carry on. I see now another poster intends to go along and ask my questions at the marquee.

I will continue to publish replies from the club to my emails. If the club reply sensibly then the directors will build trust. If they continue to reply with the utter non sense my first email solicited from them suspicion will grow.

At least you now understand why there can be no satisfactory answers to your questions. Personally I believe there are bigger fish to fry for any trust member dissatisfied with club governance.

Of course there can be satisfactory answers to my question. It is my view that the answers given thus far are unsatisfactory, but the idea that this must be the case is something with which I don't agree.