Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: The Future

106 by Stan A. Einstein
rncfc wrote: February 1st, 2024, 9:29 am
Bangitintrnet wrote: January 31st, 2024, 6:40 am To me, members now see the trust as a watchdog making sure we never hear the word expunged again.
Or Members now see the trust as a means of getting priority tickets. However is that what it should be designed for?

Are there better ways of achieving those objectives?

The FA now have tighter financial control on clubs, by effectively forcing them to carefully use windfall cash or cash from 3rd parties. If a third party goes bust, that shouldn't impact on the club, or its day to day budget.

I get that Members think a trust run club shouldn't have been deferring payments in order to keep windfall cash, but that is a way of effectivly getting a loan, when we don't have owners who can........
Newport County as a business could have got a loan if it needed one. We were cash rich and debt was cheap. Just more inane attempted justification of what has gone on.
Thirty, in fact nearly forty years ago, myself and a work colleague both bought a house at the same time. A common practice back then was the so called 'cash-back' in terms both of us found £1,000 added to our bank account. Back then £1,000 was a fair old wedge.

No right or wrong here, just a choice. My friend took her boyfriend off for a luxury fortnight holiday. I put in a kitchen

I had a kitchen. My friend had the memory of two weeks in the Portuguese sun. We both lived in our respective houses for about five years. I had the pleasure of a new kitchen for five years. And when we sold on our respective houses, I got the bigger mark up by far.

Now the truth is that £1,000 was a 'loan'. I use the inverted commas because banks don't loan money, the reality is they sell it. And whether you are a business like Newport County or an individual like me there is a golden rule.

Only ever borrow to invest.

Re: The Future

107 by Chris Davis
Going back to the future (excuse the pun). I think these are relevant points, in the discussion:

1. The Trust still exists and I do not believe there will be wholesale demands for it to cease it's existence.
2. The Trust is no longer burdened by the responsibility of owning and running the AFC, so must find it's own way in the world.
2. Members continue to pay their subs, which they will want to see used wisely and effectively.
3. The Trust still has a significant ownership (in both senses) of the AFC. That means both obligations and opportunities.
4. There is a legal agreement between the AFC and the Trust that imposes rights and benefits on both parties
5. There is a non-legal agreement set out in the accepted Huw Jenkins proposal, that, as a matter of business ethics, if not strict law should be adhered to as a far as possible. That proposal was accepted virtually unanimously by the voting members.
6. Huw Jenkins sees the Trust as being relevant and indeed important to the success of the AFC.
7. The Trust is the only formal and relatively organised voice of fans vis-a-vis the AFC.
8. The Trust has made mistakes in the past. Those mistakes have been recognised and recognition gives the opportunity of not repeating the same mistakes.

So, in my opinion, those overwhelming facts in support of the Trust, mean that what we should be doing is indeed looking to a future but a future with a clear recognition that the Trust is here to stay and we should be trying to make it work for all parties, without continually agonising about a past that no longer exists.

Re: The Future

109 by lowandhard
Chris Davis wrote: February 1st, 2024, 10:02 am Going back to the future (excuse the pun). I think these are relevant points, in the discussion:

1. The Trust still exists and I do not believe there will be wholesale demands for it to cease it's existence.
2. The Trust is no longer burdened by the responsibility of owning and running the AFC, so must find it's own way in the world.
2. Members continue to pay their subs, which they will want to see used wisely and effectively.
3. The Trust still has a significant ownership (in both senses) of the AFC. That means both obligations and opportunities.
4. There is a legal agreement between the AFC and the Trust that imposes rights and benefits on both parties
5. There is a non-legal agreement set out in the accepted Huw Jenkins proposal, that, as a matter of business ethics, if not strict law should be adhered to as a far as possible. That proposal was accepted virtually unanimously by the voting members.
6. Huw Jenkins sees the Trust as being relevant and indeed important to the success of the AFC.
7. The Trust is the only formal and relatively organised voice of fans vis-a-vis the AFC.
8. The Trust has made mistakes in the past. Those mistakes have been recognised and recognition gives the opportunity of not repeating the same mistakes.

So, in my opinion, those overwhelming facts in support of the Trust, mean that what we should be doing is indeed looking to a future but a future with a clear recognition that the Trust is here to stay and we should be trying to make it work for all parties, without continually agonising about a past that no longer exists.
Thanks for that, it was what my original post was always about. Let’s grow it in numbers and value to the club. Together we prosper.

Re: The Future

110 by Bangitintrnet
Chris Davis wrote: February 1st, 2024, 10:02 am
So, in my opinion, those overwhelming facts in support of the Trust, mean that what we should be doing is indeed looking to a future but a future with a clear recognition that the Trust is here to stay and we should be trying to make it work for all parties, without continually agonising about a past that no longer exists.
Can I point out that it was your good self that asked HJ if the trust funding was vital to his plans, because in your words later "you had other uses for it"

Then at the next meeting you put forward a openness clause, and are then astonished that a proportion of trust members vote against.

Business is about using as much of other people’s money/skills as you can, try not to your own, use others.

If your competitors have an advantage, and want to keep it quiet, why do the trust members simply want to play by different rules?

HJ is our advantage, his knowledge, his contacts, his ability. All the trust need to do is trust in him, not set sail elsewhere...........

Re: The Future

111 by lowandhard
Bangitintrnet wrote: February 1st, 2024, 10:48 am
Chris Davis wrote: February 1st, 2024, 10:02 am
So, in my opinion, those overwhelming facts in support of the Trust, mean that what we should be doing is indeed looking to a future but a future with a clear recognition that the Trust is here to stay and we should be trying to make it work for all parties, without continually agonising about a past that no longer exists.
Can I point out that it was your good self that asked HJ if the trust funding was vital to his plans, because in your words later "you had other uses for it"

Then at the next meeting you put forward a openness clause, and are then astonished that a proportion of trust members vote against.

Business is about using as much of other people’s money/skills as you can, try not to your own, use others.

If your competitors have an advantage, and want to keep it quiet, why do the trust members simply want to play by different rules?

HJ is our advantage, his knowledge, his contacts, his ability. All the trust need to do is trust in him, not set sail elsewhere...........
Are we talking about two different things? I don’t think many expect to breach confidentiality with HJ. We want openness with Trust matters.

Re: The Future

112 by Bangitintrnet
lowandhard wrote: February 1st, 2024, 11:56 am
Bangitintrnet wrote: February 1st, 2024, 10:48 am
Chris Davis wrote: February 1st, 2024, 10:02 am
So, in my opinion, those overwhelming facts in support of the Trust, mean that what we should be doing is indeed looking to a future but a future with a clear recognition that the Trust is here to stay and we should be trying to make it work for all parties, without continually agonising about a past that no longer exists.
Can I point out that it was your good self that asked HJ if the trust funding was vital to his plans, because in your words later "you had other uses for it"

Then at the next meeting you put forward a openness clause, and are then astonished that a proportion of trust members vote against.

Business is about using as much of other people’s money/skills as you can, try not to your own, use others.

If your competitors have an advantage, and want to keep it quiet, why do the trust members simply want to play by different rules?

HJ is our advantage, his knowledge, his contacts, his ability. All the trust need to do is trust in him, not set sail elsewhere...........
Are we talking about two different things? I don’t think many expect to breach confidentiality with HJ. We want openness with Trust matters.
At the vote meeting when HJ spoke, he mentioned that
The trust money might be ring fenced for something like the academy. Is that because as trust members we simply cannot agree to make a decision on selling that former Academy player at the right time?

So is he saying I will make the business decisions that as individuals, collectively you can't?

However, what I am saying is collectively we don't trust ourselves, but is there really an actual need to transfer those concerns on to HJ?

Shouldn't we trust that HJ has all the knowledge and experience to spending trust money wisely on our behalf?

Not ask ourselves why is he spending it on X? when we have a resolution to spend it on Y. (That's why we have two people on the board to check that it is only spent on Y)

Rowing in different directions, doesn't help the boat go forward.
Post Reply

Return to “Newport County Football Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bristolexile, flat4, OLDCROMWELLIAN