Wasn't his offer to fund any shortfall in the Trust's funds collecting? An offer they ultimately didn't need to take up because they reached the target? Or was there more to it than that?guest101 wrote: Dean met the interim trust board.
Rob
Re: EMAIL
33guest101 wrote:Percy plunkett wrote:If you can't make the meeting you can send questions in advance.I'm sure someone on here will send updates.Will the businessmen interested in taking over turn up or are they make believe.
I hope they do. as for insinuating it's make believe. I was approached by a county fan that i've known for 20 years and bleeds amber. He was a very successful businessman with offices in London New York Sidney and Singapore until he sold up last August. I met him in the lamb for a few beers and was blown away with what he had on offer as like i said i know he bleeds amber. I then contacted a board member to get them together. PP. all 100% true. there are business people out there that will help. more importantly they are business people that were county fans first who have become successful.
I hope he and the others come forward now instead of this cloak and dagger stuff.All the delay and confusion is not helping us.
ask yourself this like when the board met Dean Holdworth why aren't us owners being informed
?
Somerton Son. you know the truth. so let's start dealing with 2017. rather than you trying to point score against previous boards. As the owners deserve to at least be kept in the loop
Rob Sant.
07989448692
Re: EMAIL
34I hope he and the others come forward now instead of this cloak and dagger stuff.All this delay and confusion is not helping us.Percy plunkett wrote:guest101 wrote:Percy plunkett wrote:If you can't make the meeting you can send questions in advance.I'm sure someone on here will send updates.Will the businessmen interested in taking over turn up or are they make believe.
I hope they do. as for insinuating it's make believe. I was approached by a county fan that i've known for 20 years and bleeds amber. He was a very successful businessman with offices in London New York Sidney and Singapore until he sold up last August. I met him in the lamb for a few beers and was blown away with what he had on offer as like i said i know he bleeds amber. I then contacted a board member to get them together. PP. all 100% true. there are business people out there that will help. more importantly they are business people that were county fans first who have become successful.
I hope he and the others come forward now instead of this cloak and dagger stuff.All the delay and confusion is not helping us.
ask yourself this like when the board met Dean Holdworth why aren't us owners being informed
?
Somerton Son. you know the truth. so let's start dealing with 2017. rather than you trying to point score against previous boards. As the owners deserve to at least be kept in the loop
Rob Sant.
07989448692
Re: EMAIL
35Interesting - I'm told to start dealing with 2017 - yet in the same post you highlight DH talking to the interim board in 2015.
I simply highlight the failures of other boards to try and show that running / managing a football club clearly isn't as easy as the undesirables that joined in January make out.
The directors may change, but the toxic abuse remains the same. None of which helps "our" football club in the long term
I simply highlight the failures of other boards to try and show that running / managing a football club clearly isn't as easy as the undesirables that joined in January make out.
The directors may change, but the toxic abuse remains the same. None of which helps "our" football club in the long term
Re: EMAIL
36Let's break this downSomerton son wrote:Interesting - I'm told to start dealing with 2017 - yet in the same post you highlight DH talking to the interim board in 2015.
I simply highlight the failures of other boards to try and show that running / managing a football club clearly isn't as easy as the undesirables that joined in January make out.
The directors may change, but the toxic abuse remains the same. None of which helps "our" football club in the long term
The present board are only responsible for their actions and running a football club is not easy, Both statements of fact which no right minded person could disagree. Now let's move on to opinion. I would want nothing to do with Dean Holdsworth. I have no doubt the board were right in wanting to reject his advances. However what the board did which in my view was wrong was to keep quiet on the matter. We own the club now, we have a right to know. You see once a board has been elected they have to make decisions. Some of those decisions will be agreed with some won't. That is not the point. These directors will at some stage come up for re-election. They will be judged on their record. How can they be judged if we don't know what they have done? The Bank of England produce minutes of their meetings. The views held, the people who turn up. The UK is a country competing against 200 others. If they can be this open when dealing with the financial affairs of a country, the idea that for a League 2 football club, keeping all such matters secret is a financial imperative clearly can be seen as a nonsense.
Moving on. Yes I agree previous regimes made errors, huge ones. Every board does. But if that were to mean that criticism of the incumbent board should be stifled then we might as well give up now. To me the failure to address Newport County not having a stadium fit for purpose has been a failure of each and every board since the club re-formed. Today we don't have security of tenure for more than the medium term, we will never at Rodney Parade be able to access ancillary profits. That is not the fault of the present board and I don't know how to overcome that problem. Where I am highly critical of the board is that they don't talk about it. They don't address the problem. Maybe something will turn up. Maybe the world will get hit by a comet the size of Texas and we won't have to worry about it. Again it's the silence which draws my ire.
The toxic abuse remains the same? What toxic abuse? I suppose that calling someone a liar might be toxic abuse. However when Dave Boddy and Howard Greenhaff went in the Argus and told us that Newport County would have a Premier League standard pitch because the firm who had laid the Aston Villa pitch were going to lay a pitch at Rodney Parade they said something that was untrue. When a director can charge hundreds of thousands of pounds for work on a Portakabin then that stinks, and if pointing out those facts and questioning them is toxic abuse then I'm the King of Siam. And whilst it is true that I should not have referred to Gavin Foxall as Gormless Gavin, whilst I don't offer the excuse that I've been called far worse on this board and by you there are two things I would point out. If you think being called gormless is toxic abuse you really do need to get a life. Being called a F@cking W@nker at your workplace in front of members of the public by your boss, that's what I'd call toxic abuse.
By the way it's not 'our' club, it's our club. Your use of inverted commas says it all. It seems to me that the present board forgot that it is our club, and that they represent us.
However if you read my first post on this thread, the past is the past and I suggested we draw a line under what had happened and resolve to move forward. The board have potentially made a great stride forward which I welcome. You and a few others seem determined to carry on being negative.
Re: EMAIL
37And at the point these supposed contacts took placed the Trust didn't constitute the board. I can think of a very good reason why it would have been unwise for the Trust to publicise an offer to top up their fundraising. I suspect enough people would have put their wallets back in their pockets - either because they were stretching financially in the first place or because they didn't fancy Holdsworth involved - for the Trust effort to collapse. Holdsworth and his mates, who neither us would have wanted involved, would have had an easier run at it.Stan A. Einstein wrote: The present board are only responsible for their actions and running a football club is not easy, Both statements of fact which no right minded person could disagree. Now let's move on to opinion. I would want nothing to do with Dean Holdsworth. I have no doubt the board were right in wanting to reject his advances. However what the board did which in my view was wrong was to keep quiet on the matter.
I've asked this several times and had a few replies, but I don't recall one from you. At what precise point since 1989 should the club have embarked on this, what would have provided the seed funding and how many steps backwards on the pitch would you have been prepared to take to achieve it?To me the failure to address Newport County not having a stadium fit for purpose has been a failure of each and every board since the club re-formed.
But they didn't say that. Howard said he hoped that would be the outcome. I imagine there are cases where you hope and expect your client will be acquitted, but it turns out differently.However when Dave Boddy and Howard Greenhaff went in the Argus and told us that Newport County would have a Premier League standard pitch because the firm who had laid the Aston Villa pitch were going to lay a pitch at Rodney Parade they said something that was untrue.
Re: EMAIL
40Greenhaf and Boddy didn't lie - that is what they genuinely believed at the time.
It's not to dissimilar to a poster announcing he is going to stand for election not once but twice then not doing so. Or a poster saying his goodbyes because he's found eternal love and is off to live happily ever after. Only to be back within days.
See that doesn't make someone a liar , it's just sometimes things don't turn out as one would hope for.
It's not to dissimilar to a poster announcing he is going to stand for election not once but twice then not doing so. Or a poster saying his goodbyes because he's found eternal love and is off to live happily ever after. Only to be back within days.
See that doesn't make someone a liar , it's just sometimes things don't turn out as one would hope for.
Re: EMAIL
41George,
Lets deal with your three points one by one.
The first issue is where we have a simple disagreement. You say 'I can think of good reasons why'. My point is that there should be transparency. You're right I wouldn't want Holdsworth at our club, neither would you. Where we disagree is that I think that my views don't have any more validity in themselves than every other fan. I don't think I can say, I know best. I get things wrong sometimes, when people evaluate what I say they can then judge me. Let me give you an example of such.
The board of directors have to make decisions. Because they are directors it is their decision to make. They stand and fall on those decisions. Last season they made a decision with which I profoundly disagreed. Their decision was notified and I voiced why I thought it was wrong. In the fullness of time it was shown that I was wrong and they correct.
The decision was to sack Westley. I would not have done so. The reason for this is that I thought we were down and sacking Westley would cost us compensation to no purpose.
However it's not quite that simple. Had it been my decision to make I would not have appointed Feeney. It became clear to me at the away game at Wimbledon he was not the man for the job. I said at the time in a game that was a dead rubber, to have played a full strengthy side against Wimbledon's second string showed he was a man desperate for a result. They board made the decision, it was their decision to make, my right to be critical. In that instance I was right, they were wrong.
Let's move on. With Westley I would have offered him the job only on a small retainer and a huge bonus to keep us up. The board appointed him as though it were a straightforward appointment on normal terms. I wouldn't have done that. I said so. I would have said to Westley that's the offer take it or leave it. A number of people posted on here telling me I was crazy, that Westley would not have taken the job on those conditions. We will never know. However had Westley said no, had my critics been right I suppose the upshot would have been I would have appointed Flynn in October 2016.
I'm surprised by your second point. I have been calling for the club to address the stadium problem since I've been posting. However I can remember when I had the revelation that we could never be a League side at Spytty. It was a game against Cambridge City in about 1998. I remember nothing of the game save one incident. County attacked, a shot went just wide, there was atmosphere and excitement. That excitement was long dead by the time a hapless ball boy had retrieved the ball. As the ball bounced further and further away and the crowd became board I knew we had a very serious problem and that an athletics track was a death knell to our ambitions. To answer your question, 1998. When you ask how many steps backward, come on. How on earth can working towards a new stadium be a step backwards?
Your final point. The lie was in bigging up Phil Day Sports. That was jobs for mates. Further that when the job was botched Howard Greenhaff went in the Argus and stated that the problem was that it was a dry summer and the ground was too hard, he emphasized that he was a builder so he knew. My late father had no interest in football but he was a builder. I know nothing about drains so I asked my father about whether this explanation was possible. My father told me that what Greenhaf had said was complete bollox.
To answer your final question, whatever I might have hoped, I have never lied to win a case.
EDIT
I have just seem Somerton Son's latest contribution. I intend to be a multi-millionaire in August and solve all Newport County's financial problems. Is not a lie. If I were to pretend that there is any realistic possibility that I will be a multi-millionaire this time next month it would be.
Lets deal with your three points one by one.
The first issue is where we have a simple disagreement. You say 'I can think of good reasons why'. My point is that there should be transparency. You're right I wouldn't want Holdsworth at our club, neither would you. Where we disagree is that I think that my views don't have any more validity in themselves than every other fan. I don't think I can say, I know best. I get things wrong sometimes, when people evaluate what I say they can then judge me. Let me give you an example of such.
The board of directors have to make decisions. Because they are directors it is their decision to make. They stand and fall on those decisions. Last season they made a decision with which I profoundly disagreed. Their decision was notified and I voiced why I thought it was wrong. In the fullness of time it was shown that I was wrong and they correct.
The decision was to sack Westley. I would not have done so. The reason for this is that I thought we were down and sacking Westley would cost us compensation to no purpose.
However it's not quite that simple. Had it been my decision to make I would not have appointed Feeney. It became clear to me at the away game at Wimbledon he was not the man for the job. I said at the time in a game that was a dead rubber, to have played a full strengthy side against Wimbledon's second string showed he was a man desperate for a result. They board made the decision, it was their decision to make, my right to be critical. In that instance I was right, they were wrong.
Let's move on. With Westley I would have offered him the job only on a small retainer and a huge bonus to keep us up. The board appointed him as though it were a straightforward appointment on normal terms. I wouldn't have done that. I said so. I would have said to Westley that's the offer take it or leave it. A number of people posted on here telling me I was crazy, that Westley would not have taken the job on those conditions. We will never know. However had Westley said no, had my critics been right I suppose the upshot would have been I would have appointed Flynn in October 2016.
I'm surprised by your second point. I have been calling for the club to address the stadium problem since I've been posting. However I can remember when I had the revelation that we could never be a League side at Spytty. It was a game against Cambridge City in about 1998. I remember nothing of the game save one incident. County attacked, a shot went just wide, there was atmosphere and excitement. That excitement was long dead by the time a hapless ball boy had retrieved the ball. As the ball bounced further and further away and the crowd became board I knew we had a very serious problem and that an athletics track was a death knell to our ambitions. To answer your question, 1998. When you ask how many steps backward, come on. How on earth can working towards a new stadium be a step backwards?
Your final point. The lie was in bigging up Phil Day Sports. That was jobs for mates. Further that when the job was botched Howard Greenhaff went in the Argus and stated that the problem was that it was a dry summer and the ground was too hard, he emphasized that he was a builder so he knew. My late father had no interest in football but he was a builder. I know nothing about drains so I asked my father about whether this explanation was possible. My father told me that what Greenhaf had said was complete bollox.
To answer your final question, whatever I might have hoped, I have never lied to win a case.
EDIT
I have just seem Somerton Son's latest contribution. I intend to be a multi-millionaire in August and solve all Newport County's financial problems. Is not a lie. If I were to pretend that there is any realistic possibility that I will be a multi-millionaire this time next month it would be.
Re: EMAIL
42But you don't have a problem with the board speaking to him now?George Street-Bridge wrote:It would have changed the nature of the bid. I'd have been horrified to be told "We got over the line, thanks to a loan from Dean Holdsworth and his associates".
The offer was that if the Trust didn't reach its donation target, you could have your money back. I would have wanted mine.
Re: EMAIL
43DH used to be a trust member. Is he still?Bush wrote:But you don't have a problem with the board speaking to him now?George Street-Bridge wrote:It would have changed the nature of the bid. I'd have been horrified to be told "We got over the line, thanks to a loan from Dean Holdsworth and his associates".
The offer was that if the Trust didn't reach its donation target, you could have your money back. I would have wanted mine.
Re: EMAIL
44guest101 wrote:Bush wrote:But you don't have a problem with the board speaking to him now?George Street-Bridge wrote:It would have changed the nature of the bid. I'd have been horrified to be told "We got over the line, thanks to a loan from Dean Holdsworth and his associates".
The offer was that if the Trust didn't reach its donation target, you could have your money back. I would have wanted mine.
i'd speak to any potential investor the main reason i would as if we don't sell a player draw liverpool away. We will be skint by late November maybe earlier. Time for the trust stop listening to one man but embrace a group of people.
Rob Sant.
Who are you referring to Rob Sant ?
Re: EMAIL
45I said steps backwards ON THE PITCH. Funds would always have been limited and without an old ground to sell, we'd have been starting with a patch of ground. You had your revelation in the wilderness in 1998. Add time to find a site, sort out planning etc and we'd already have been in Conference South. Where you need a ground which is well above basic. So you might need to take a demotion or stand still to get the ground up to scratch.Stan A. Einstein wrote: When you ask how many steps backward, come on. How on earth can working towards a new stadium be a step backwards?
And he had first-hand knowledge of the site?I know nothing about drains so I asked my father about whether this explanation was possible. My father told me that what Greenhaf had said was complete bollox.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users