Stan

28th September we were inform that the trust were looking to fill 5 director spots on the trust board.

Next week will see a breach of the rules as the Financial year end is the 31st August. The relevant extract is below, and allowance also needs to be made for the statutory notice period for a meeting.

29. The Club shall, within six months of the end of the financial year, hold a general meeting of the Members as its annual general meeting and shall specify the meeting as such in the notices calling it.


This delay, could it be a sign of bad news coming, as last year the AGM was held in January, bolstered by accounts showing a £350k profit?

Lucky Mascot 2 wrote:

Bush wrote:So we have elected 5 people straight onto the operations board ahead of those directors already on the trust board? Why didn't those trust board members resign then put themselves forward to be elected to the operations board? This is all just mental.

Yes forgot about the operations board, will add to my list of board names. May be the newly elected directors while sat in the waiting room can form a focus group, select commitee, steering group or board naming war cabinet to simplify this.

It's bonkers. Gone from 1500 supporters groups to 1500 boards! Imagine where we would be if we simplified everything and worked together as one!

Perhaps some of the boards should be 'chopped'?

Perhaps one of the newbie directors that post on here can clear this up for us?

This seems pretty self explanatory to me;

We will be holding elections to fill five vacant positions on the Supporters Trust Board
At the last Supporters Forum we notified Trust members of the intention to hold elections to fill 5 vacant positions on the Supporters Trust Board. As part of this process we have been working with Colin Everett to put in place a clear timetable for the elections, which is set out below.
In order to ensure the elections run as smoothly as possible during October we will be reviewing the membership database and ensuring full compliance with election protocols. Colin has kindly offered to assist the Trust with this process.

It should be remembered that if the number of valid candidates is the same or less than the number of vacancies then they are to be elected unopposed.

Exile 1976 wrote:Perhaps one of the newbie directors that post on here can clear this up for us?

The number of boards is of course utterly ridiculous. If you were trying to devise a system which is/was designed for the sole purpose of causing as much confusion as possible then you would be hard pressed to top what Newport County AFC have achieved. And I really don't know whether this was done by accident or with the intention of keeping the power in the hands of a very limited number of people.

However this does not alter the fact that Kevin Ward simply has too high a profile in Newport to be kept off the board of Newport County. That in turn will by association apply to the others who have been elected.

I have no doubt that I will disagree with some of the decisions that the new board make. But that does not matter. What matters is that I genuinely believe that we will have a board of directors who will be accountable to the supporters. Those elected are representatives not delegates. They will, I hope, make decisions and at the end of their tenure stand on their record.

And that is as it should be.

https://www.newport-county.co.uk/siteas ... paper-.pdf

This hopefully explains, it's in the public domain so I can't see an issue posting.

Agree that's it's confusing, will ask for clarification at the board meeting.

Newport County AFC Trust - Board and Club and Community Groups Policy
1. Introduction
The following document has been drafted in accordance with the existing rules and side policies and sets out the relationship between the Trust Board, the Club group and the Community group of the Club.
The policy was adopted by the Newport County AFC Trust Board on 28th September 2017.

Ryan Courtney UTC

Bush wrote:So we have elected 5 people straight onto the operations board ahead of those directors already on the trust board? Why didn't those trust board members resign then put themselves forward to be elected to the operations board? This is all just mental.

There is no Operations Board.I suggested at an early open meeting,that this should be named the Operations Committee to avoid confusion.This Committee is made up of paid employees,CEO,Commericial Manager etc and they liaise with two directors including GF.Any meetings are chaired by GF,the Operations Chairman.I agree there is some confusion with two AGM's and maybe a two tier set of directors,but this Committee isn't part of the board.

What a palaver

UPTHEPORT wrote:What a palaver

The suspicion is that there was a coordinated effort to retain power by settings up layers of bureaucracy. Simple answer. When the new directors are in place they dissolve this nonsense.

One board of elected officials to preside over the club for a three year period. At the end of those three years they along with everyone else who wishes to can stand in the next election.

Percy plunkett wrote:

Bush wrote:So we have elected 5 people straight onto the operations board ahead of those directors already on the trust board? Why didn't those trust board members resign then put themselves forward to be elected to the operations board? This is all just mental.

There is no Operations Board.I suggested at an early open meeting,that this should be named the Operations Committee to avoid confusion.This Committee is made up of paid employees,CEO,Commericial Manager etc and they liaise with two directors including GF.Any meetings are chaired by GF,the Operations Chairman.I agree there is some confusion with two AGM's and maybe a two tier set of directors,but this Committee isn't part of the board.

I thought there was a football board that involved GF, SJ, NC and the two co-opted directors MC and PM. I thought this was the issue with Charlie Hopkins and Malcolm Temple had with the set up? might be wrong about NC being on there apologies if he isn't. there was certainly 3 current directors mentioned.

Bush wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote:

Bush wrote:So we have elected 5 people straight onto the operations board ahead of those directors already on the trust board? Why didn't those trust board members resign then put themselves forward to be elected to the operations board? This is all just mental.

There is no Operations Board.I suggested at an early open meeting,that this should be named the Operations Committee to avoid confusion.This Committee is made up of paid employees,CEO,Commericial Manager etc and they liaise with two directors including GF.Any meetings are chaired by GF,the Operations Chairman.I agree there is some confusion with two AGM's and maybe a two tier set of directors,but this Committee isn't part of the board.

I thought there was a football board that involved GF, SJ, NC and the two co-opted directors MC and PM. I thought this was the issue with Charlie Hopkins and Malcolm Temple had with the set up? might be wrong about NC being on there apologies if he isn't. there was certainly 3 current directors mentioned.

You may be correct,my point is,the Operations Committee is separate from this.Any mention of 'Operations',involves the CEO etc and GF and the other director on day to day matters.They probably have formal meetings as well as informal,but none of the five new directors would be on this Committee.

Percy plunkett wrote: You may be correct,my point is,the Operations Committee is separate from this.Any mention of 'Operations',involves the CEO etc and GF and the other director on day to day matters.They probably have formal meetings as well as informal,but none of the five new directors would be on this Committee.

I don't have any reason to doubt what you say but when you say that none of the new directors would be on this committee, on what basis do you say that?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Percy plunkett wrote: You may be correct,my point is,the Operations Committee is separate from this.Any mention of 'Operations',involves the CEO etc and GF and the other director on day to day matters.They probably have formal meetings as well as informal,but none of the five new directors would be on this Committee.

I don't have any reason to doubt what you say but when you say that none of the new directors would be on this committee, on what basis do you say that?

The two directors are the point of contact for all staff for simplicity.If say Norman needed advice on his schools project or Byron had an issue with the Academy and they contacted other directors,it could get complicated with too many cooks.Better to keep it to two.However,if GF did resign or the other director steped down from the Committee,then a new or existing director could take their place.