Stan A. Einstein wrote:Only promoted by two. One of whom has already indicated in his reply just how much a pedant can maintain a totally ridiculous argument.

Not sure who that is aimed at Stan but if my post came across as pedantic then apologies. I was trying to be helpful. I know things get personal on here at times but I'm not interested in that kind of thing.
I try to be courteous in my posts as I think that's the way to debate.

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.

The Newport County AFC Supporters’ Trust Board (or abbreviated variations such as Supporters’ Trust) is the full Trust Board.

A subdivision of the full Trust Board, directed/mandated to do so by the full Trust Board, can meet independently of the full Trust Board (the minutes of which would not be of the full Trust Board) to examine issues germane to those particular subdivisions, so not taking up full Trust Board time.

The full Trust Board are just stating that they are approving the redacted full Trust Board Feb meeting minutes for publication, as opposed to approving, say, redacted minutes of a meeting of a subdivision of the full Trust Board for publication.

Absolutely, there are two subdivisions set up and working below the main board. The Club Group with the main aim to oversee the running of the Club and the Community Group with the aim of overseeing the running of the Trust.

Each of these Groups meet formally and separately on a regular basis (monthly in normal times). The directors are split between these two Groups, there are also non-director members/attendees at this level. When they were first set up no Director was a member of both Groups. Both Groups then report to the full board via the full board meetings seeking approval on some matters from the full board when necessary.

Minutes of the full board meetings are published, albeit redacted. I have never seen minutes of the Group meetings issued and am not aware that this has ever happened. In my view, these would be more interesting than the ones we do get to see as many decisions can be made by each Group without reference to the full Board and without the participation of all Directors.

I believe that while this keeps a level of separation between the Trust and the Club at the working level, it is this separation that has led to the clique mentality as a definite us and them situation has developed between the directors tasked with running the Club and those representing just the Trust. I have been told that all newly appointed directors are put into the Community group keeping them away from the running of the Club. This seems to have caused resentment leading to a number of directors leaving. It seemed more harmonious when it was all one big amorphous blob.

Jonesy3 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Only promoted by two. One of whom has already indicated in his reply just how much a pedant can maintain a totally ridiculous argument.

Not sure who that is aimed at Stan but if my post came across as pedantic then apologies. I was trying to be helpful. I know things get personal on here at times but I'm not interested in that kind of thing.
I try to be courteous in my posts as I think that's the way to debate.

Point taken, I'll try to be more courteous. Moving on save possibly Amberexile it would appear that we can all accept the Trust Directors and the club Directors being the same people for al;l practical purposes they are the same thing.

You are also aware that as you put it a small group run the club 'day to day'. And albeit without malice why I think yourself and to a far greater extent Amberexile have done a disservice to those trying to find out what is going on at Newport County.

I don't care whether it's the supporters trust and club trust or supporters trust and club, because the distinction doesn't matter let alone the the semantics. But it concentrating on the such minor points the big issue is lost.

A small group of directors have taken over the club. They make the decisions and present them to the board to be rubber stamped. Now I clearly jest when I compare them to Stalin. Nobody is murdered. there are no Gulags,, But the principle is the same. The idea that there is any accountability is nonsense. Directors leave if they are not prepared to be yes-men, and in the end it all falls apart.

So decisions are made. Foxhall gives Flynn a wage rise so he, Flynn, is paid way over the odds for a League 2 manager. Costs are further increased because a mentor, Lawrence, has to be employed for the inexperienced Flynn. And then comes the rainy day, Covid, and the finances are up the spout. And because supporters have been excluded the crowd funder appeal is one sixteenth as successful as that of Sligo Rovers.

Now by all means disagree with my analysis, But please try and look at the bigger picture.

Now the upshot of this is that the supporter owners of Newport County are disenfranchised. And the result of that is the shambles we now have. And clouding the issue with there not being a club trust is in my view, unhelpful.

Jonesy3 wrote:There is a Supporters Trust. There's no such thing as a Club Trust.

Supporters Trust, Club Trust, Full Trust, it is all the same thing.

pembsexile wrote:

Jonesy3 wrote:There is a Supporters Trust. There's no such thing as a Club Trust.

Supporters Trust, Club Trust, Full Trust, it is all the same thing.

How about NO TRUST seems to be more fitting at this time. Suspect there is a lot more going on behind closed doors than we will ever know, If we still have a club to start the 2020/21 season, the question you have to ask yourself is, will we still be a Lge 2 club at the end of the 2020/21 season, early indications aligned with the performance in the 2019/20 suggest unlikely, it`s more likely going to be a relegation battle that we face rarther than mid table.

Amberexile wrote:

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.

The Newport County AFC Supporters’ Trust Board (or abbreviated variations such as Supporters’ Trust) is the full Trust Board.

A subdivision of the full Trust Board, directed/mandated to do so by the full Trust Board, can meet independently of the full Trust Board (the minutes of which would not be of the full Trust Board) to examine issues germane to those particular subdivisions, so not taking up full Trust Board time.

The full Trust Board are just stating that they are approving the redacted full Trust Board Feb meeting minutes for publication, as opposed to approving, say, redacted minutes of a meeting of a subdivision of the full Trust Board for publication.

Absolutely, there are two subdivisions set up and working below the main board. The Club Group with the main aim to oversee the running of the Club and the Community Group with the aim of overseeing the running of the Trust.

Each of these Groups meet formally and separately on a regular basis (monthly in normal times). The directors are split between these two Groups, there are also non-director members/attendees at this level. When they were first set up no Director was a member of both Groups. Both Groups then report to the full board via the full board meetings seeking approval on some matters from the full board when necessary.

Minutes of the full board meetings are published, albeit redacted. I have never seen minutes of the Group meetings issued and am not aware that this has ever happened. In my view, these would be more interesting than the ones we do get to see as many decisions can be made by each Group without reference to the full Board and without the participation of all Directors.

I believe that while this keeps a level of separation between the Trust and the Club at the working level, it is this separation that has led to the clique mentality as a definite us and them situation has developed between the directors tasked with running the Club and those representing just the Trust. I have been told that all newly appointed directors are put into the Community group keeping them away from the running of the Club. This seems to have caused resentment leading to a number of directors leaving. It seemed more harmonious when it was all one big amorphous blob.

In my opinion your last paragraph is 100% spot on.
Despite being elected their is always a delay before they officially get to sit down at future meetings, appreciate they need to pass Directorship applicability also.
One newly elected Director was standing alone at the back of The Bisley despite all the current coziness at the top table so I had a good chat with him.
Hope he is more welcomed now a few years on.
I still feel its one big jolly for some in the "clique"
Stans comment on the shoe sole seems near the point sometimes.
Such a shame hence we have a dreadful response to the begging bowl request this time.

Hopefully they will make a decision at this week's meeting on when the season should start although it looks like the wages cap decision will be delayed further.

Since we seem to start seasons well and then drop off as the pitch deteriorates, perhaps getting back before too many rugby matches have been played will help.

When there is a date to aim at and a salary cap decision is made, we might gain an inkling as to what if any player recruitment there will be.

Will it be ex-premirship players for peanuts, non-league ne'er-do-wells or as you were?

There may be a delay until the National League can also confirm a start. I think the end of July (for information) as that will tie in with the NL playoffs and maybe a conclusion to the Macclesfield saga.

excessbee wrote:There may be a delay until the National League can also confirm a start. I think the end of July (for information) as that will tie in with the NL playoffs and maybe a conclusion to the Macclesfield saga.

It does seem odd if both Macclesfield and Stevenage are allowed to vote on matters regarding next season at the meetings this month while the situation over relegation is so unclear.

If the EFL agree a start date for League 2 does that then put pressure on the NL to do likewise?

With the play off final on August 2nd, if there is a short period between the NL playoff final and the restart, it will reduce the time the promoted team's players can have off to recover before pre-season training.

As has been said elsewhere, why not make the start date and salary cap decision at the same meeting? Agreeing the date before making a decision on the salary cap leaves some clubs in a bit of a limbo with regards to recruitment.

Amberexile wrote:

excessbee wrote:There may be a delay until the National League can also confirm a start. I think the end of July (for information) as that will tie in with the NL playoffs and maybe a conclusion to the Macclesfield saga.

It does seem odd if both Macclesfield and Stevenage are allowed to vote on matters regarding next season at the meetings this month while the situation over relegation is so unclear.

If the EFL agree a start date for League 2 does that then put pressure on the NL to do likewise?

With the play off final on August 2nd, if there is a short period between the NL playoff final and the restart, it will reduce the time the promoted team's players can have off to recover before pre-season training.

As has been said elsewhere, why not make the start date and salary cap decision at the same meeting? Agreeing the date before making a decision on the salary cap leaves some clubs in a bit of a limbo with regards to recruitment.

Looks like we may have a plastic pitch in EFL2 next season if Harrogate win the play-offs. Tough sh*t regarding the short lead-in for the play-off winner - the NL has had plenty of time to get the play-offs sorted out and has prevaricated.

Edit: I take that back. Seems they will have sufficient time to lay a new grass pitch if they win the play-offs.

https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/s ... ed-2877519

faerun exile wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

excessbee wrote:There may be a delay until the National League can also confirm a start. I think the end of July (for information) as that will tie in with the NL playoffs and maybe a conclusion to the Macclesfield saga.

It does seem odd if both Macclesfield and Stevenage are allowed to vote on matters regarding next season at the meetings this month while the situation over relegation is so unclear.

If the EFL agree a start date for League 2 does that then put pressure on the NL to do likewise?

With the play off final on August 2nd, if there is a short period between the NL playoff final and the restart, it will reduce the time the promoted team's players can have off to recover before pre-season training.

As has been said elsewhere, why not make the start date and salary cap decision at the same meeting? Agreeing the date before making a decision on the salary cap leaves some clubs in a bit of a limbo with regards to recruitment.

Looks like we may have a plastic pitch in EFL2 next season if Harrogate win the play-offs. Tough sh*t regarding the short lead-in for the play-off winner - the NL has had plenty of time to get the play-offs sorted out and has prevaricated.

Edit: I take that back. Seems they will have sufficient time to lay a new grass pitch if they win the play-offs.

https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/s ... ed-2877519

The article is dated 8th June so you could have been right in the first place. It would certainly be an interesting outcome for us if that were to happen.

There are other options. Harrogate must have agreed to remove their artificial surface to be allowed into the league, although I suspect they would have expected more time to do so. Of course they still have the playoffs to negotiate. It obviously takes less time to lay a grass surface than if the replacement was the opposite way around. If the matches are behind closed doors, then a short term groundshare might be approved, no need for the (spectators) safety and seating requirements. If just for a month or so, there could be a reversal of a couple of fixtures, as we did when Rodney Parade was relaid.

excessbee wrote:There are other options. Harrogate must have agreed to remove their artificial surface to be allowed into the league, although I suspect they would have expected more time to do so. Of course they still have the playoffs to negotiate. It obviously takes less time to lay a grass surface than if the replacement was the opposite way around. If the matches are behind closed doors, then a short term groundshare might be approved, no need for the (spectators) safety and seating requirements. If just for a month or so, there could be a reversal of a couple of fixtures, as we did when Rodney Parade was relaid.

Yep all good points although I doubt any other club would volunteer to a fixture reversal during the behind closed doors period.

excessbee wrote:There are other options. Harrogate must have agreed to remove their artificial surface to be allowed into the league, although I suspect they would have expected more time to do so. Of course they still have the playoffs to negotiate. It obviously takes less time to lay a grass surface than if the replacement was the opposite way around. If the matches are behind closed doors, then a short term groundshare might be approved, no need for the (spectators) safety and seating requirements. If just for a month or so, there could be a reversal of a couple of fixtures, as we did when Rodney Parade was relaid.

They have definitely previously agreed to replace the plastic if they get promoted, so an option that gives them the time to do so does seem most likely.

Amberexile wrote:

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.

The Newport County AFC Supporters’ Trust Board (or abbreviated variations such as Supporters’ Trust) is the full Trust Board.

A subdivision of the full Trust Board, directed/mandated to do so by the full Trust Board, can meet independently of the full Trust Board (the minutes of which would not be of the full Trust Board) to examine issues germane to those particular subdivisions, so not taking up full Trust Board time.

The full Trust Board are just stating that they are approving the redacted full Trust Board Feb meeting minutes for publication, as opposed to approving, say, redacted minutes of a meeting of a subdivision of the full Trust Board for publication.

Absolutely, there are two subdivisions set up and working below the main board. The Club Group with the main aim to oversee the running of the Club and the Community Group with the aim of overseeing the running of the Trust.

Each of these Groups meet formally and separately on a regular basis (monthly in normal times). The directors are split between these two Groups, there are also non-director members/attendees at this level. When they were first set up no Director was a member of both Groups. Both Groups then report to the full board via the full board meetings seeking approval on some matters from the full board when necessary.

Minutes of the full board meetings are published, albeit redacted. I have never seen minutes of the Group meetings issued and am not aware that this has ever happened. In my view, these would be more interesting than the ones we do get to see as many decisions can be made by each Group without reference to the full Board and without the participation of all Directors.

I believe that while this keeps a level of separation between the Trust and the Club at the working level, it is this separation that has led to the clique mentality as a definite us and them situation has developed between the directors tasked with running the Club and those representing just the Trust. I have been told that all newly appointed directors are put into the Community group keeping them away from the running of the Club. This seems to have caused resentment leading to a number of directors leaving. It seemed more harmonious when it was all one big amorphous blob.

The only point on which I would disagree is that you maintain there is a separation between the Trust and the club. I agree entirely that there is a separation but that separation is between the inner sanctum and everybody else.

Now this causes three problems.

Firstly, any small group which is unaccountable loses touch.

Secondly, the inner sanctum are inept, indeed incompetent.

Thirdly, the people of Newport know this. As a consequence we can see the totally embarrassing attempt at crowd funding. Unless people feel involved, they don't have an emotional attachment.

And this is very sad. We know that done properly fans ownership can work, we have seen it work elsewhere. We know Newport is plenty big enough to support a higher level of football. A population in the city alone of 150,000. We know the passion exists, look at the crowd for Notts County three years ago.

As is said in a post above, no trust indeed.