Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Sorry, for once I thought you had written something farsighted.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Sorry, for once I thought you had written something farsighted.

Simply put, I do not believe that the Trust owned model is viable in the long term outside the football league so in the short term, I would prioritise league survival as an enabler to achieve longer term goals. While I understand that this does not suit the agenda of some, a trust run club in the football league is my preference.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Sorry, for once I thought you had written something farsighted.

Meeeeooooowwwww !!!!

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Sorry, for once I thought you had written something farsighted.

Simply put, I do not believe that the Trust owned model is viable in the long term outside the football league so in the short term, I would prioritise league survival as an enabler to achieve longer term goals. While I understand that this does not suit the agenda of some, a trust run club in the football league is my preference.

I quite agree. I also find it totally bewildering that we are a fan owned club and someone is seemingly campaigning for the people that could be deemed responsible for building up our level of unsustainable debt in the first place to be co-opted on to the board to advise us on how to engage the business community.

Somerton son wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Sorry, for once I thought you had written something farsighted.

Simply put, I do not believe that the Trust owned model is viable in the long term outside the football league so in the short term, I would prioritise league survival as an enabler to achieve longer term goals. While I understand that this does not suit the agenda of some, a trust run club in the football league is my preference.

I quite agree. I also find it totally bewildering that we are a fan owned club and someone is seemingly campaigning for the people that could be deemed responsible for building up our level of unsustainable debt in the first place to be co-opted on to the board to advise us on how to engage the business community.

They're not the same people, but just to humour you - because we want to compete on the pitch?

rncfc wrote:

Somerton son wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:

Stefan1Kuntz wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:Our learned friend from Ipswich is correct that no by-election took place but he may have observed that Mark Crook has been co-opted onto the board and there is still one vacancy so what is stopping him.Therefore Triangle is also correct.

Why on earth would they go through the rigmarole of holding a by election for two people just several weeks after holding an election where only 9 people bothered to present a manifesto?

Co-opting Mark Crook a few months down the line has proved a well thought out structured approach.

Especially as they fully entitled to carry on unless the number of people on the board falls below 6. There are much bigger things to moan about than the board doing what we have empowered them to do.

I agree entirely that there are much more important things to deal with. As everyone with a brain knows unless or until we begin the process of developing a fit for purpose stadium we can't hope to be successful. My biggest worry is that after twenty nine years and God alone knows how many directors of Newport County not once has an incumbent director acknowledged that fact.

I meant in terms of the application of the club's constitution, but personally I find our current league position a bigger worry.

Sorry, for once I thought you had written something farsighted.

Simply put, I do not believe that the Trust owned model is viable in the long term outside the football league so in the short term, I would prioritise league survival as an enabler to achieve longer term goals. While I understand that this does not suit the agenda of some, a trust run club in the football league is my preference.

I quite agree. I also find it totally bewildering that we are a fan owned club and someone is seemingly campaigning for the people that could be deemed responsible for building up our level of unsustainable debt in the first place to be co-opted on to the board to advise us on how to engage the business community.

They're not the same people, but just to humour you - because we want to compete on the pitch?

Who are they then ? Do you know ?

Until Rob Sant names who these people are he wants elected. We simply do not know who he's referring to, so we can only guess when he refers to the three previous boards.

It's not a case of who anyone wants elected. I believe in the trust model, I think that it is the way forward for clubs such as ourselves. My problem is that at the moment we who saved our club, we who own our club don't really have the first clue what is going on and those elected, once elected seem to have no intention of telling us.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:It's not a case of who anyone wants elected. I believe in the trust model, I think that it is the way forward for clubs such as ourselves. My problem is that at the moment we who saved our club, we who own our club don't really have the first clue what is going on and those elected, once elected seem to have no intention of telling us.

We received a sizable informative update on the 9th January, since then there has been information on the 17th and the AGM on the 19th Jan, including a presentation from the manager.

Time for new blood on the board not going back to those who have been here before.

I'm not a massive fan of the last board or the one before that.

The only thing i know is this current board would have had the worst losses in one year if it wasn't propped up by the C Washington payment.

Also we've got to add another £100.000 to those figures once the pending tribunal case with Anthony Redwood is settled. Allegedly one year after he was put on gardening leave, We are still paying him. That peeps is scandalous.

Shame that's the exact amount, We are being asked to raise in the R&B Scheme.

Triangle wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:It's not a case of who anyone wants elected. I believe in the trust model, I think that it is the way forward for clubs such as ourselves. My problem is that at the moment we who saved our club, we who own our club don't really have the first clue what is going on and those elected, once elected seem to have no intention of telling us.

We received a sizable informative update on the 9th January, since then there has been information on the 17th and the AGM on the 19th Jan, including a presentation from the manager.

Hmm the email on the 17th was about half season tickets only so not very informative really other that that 1 subject, the 1 on the 9th was the first communication in a long time.

1 or 2 emails a year isn't really keeping us up to date is it? Especially as we were told at the meeting in the Riverfront Theatre that communication would be much better but then again they were asking us to raise £250k at the time I suppose.

Anthony redwood fancy posting as nick martin,you any relation to constipation man?

theale wrote:Anthony redwood fancy posting as nick martin,you any relation to constipation man?

Tony Soprano wrote:

Triangle wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:It's not a case of who anyone wants elected. I believe in the trust model, I think that it is the way forward for clubs such as ourselves. My problem is that at the moment we who saved our club, we who own our club don't really have the first clue what is going on and those elected, once elected seem to have no intention of telling us.

We received a sizable informative update on the 9th January, since then there has been information on the 17th and the AGM on the 19th Jan, including a presentation from the manager.

Hmm the email on the 17th was about half season tickets only so not very informative really other that that 1 subject, the 1 on the 9th was the first communication in a long time.

1 or 2 emails a year isn't really keeping us up to date is it? Especially as we were told at the meeting in the Riverfront Theatre that communication would be much better but then again they were asking us to raise £250k at the time I suppose.

9th of January (the other communications, board meeting and surprise (or not because it is a monthly update) on the 9th of February another great update from the board.