Bush wrote:

Jimmy Exile wrote:

Bush wrote:No one on that board is liable for any debt. Old, present or new debt. If we lose more than 350k next year how many will stick around? It still boils down to people are making decisions financially not with their money. This club is not debt free. How much do we owe the WRU for a start.

How much do we owe Hartlepool for amond? Is that not a debt?

What is the bank loan in the accounts? Is that not a debt?

Bankoverdraft is that not a debt?

I just looked at the accounts. I may have it wrong as am no accountant but do you mean the bank loan that was 93 grand in 2016 and now is 42 grand? Didn't we know about this when the trust boys took over and it was existing debt that is being reduced every month?

how do you know we owe Hartlepool for amond? also do you think the club is being run well at the moment in general?

A 350k loss in one year would suggest its not well run. I don’t think any trust run club at our size will ever be well run no. The proof is in the pudding and a year without extraordinary funds results in a loss that’s 3 times more than the amount of money that put this club under previously.

My guess is if you look at how much we bring in via the rewards and benefit scheme you will really see how much the fans of Newport county don’t want to be fan owned.

You could also argue that the £350k loss was extraordinary because of the situation. Most supporters wanted Feeney sacked , most wanted Westly appointed. This was the catalyst for the downward spiral that the majority were in favour of. I agree about the trust model not being viable , but what is the alternative? The businessmen / consortium do not seem that interested now they have seen how difficult it is, how much money they would have to find to rectify a wrong managerial appointment and how much criticism they would receive.

Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

Alan G Bryant wrote:Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

They are not liable. That is the shareholders are liable but that is limited to our shareholding.

However they are responsible and therefore in my view should be accountable. However if the shareholders don't know what is going on, that accountability is non existent. And that really is the point. Not whether decisions are right or wrong, not whether I or anyone else agrees with the decisions. Rather that transparency is required so that the shareholders are in a position to make informed choices.

Alan G Bryant wrote:Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

Totally missing the point again. In a trust run model they are not liable. Not once have I said they should be. What I’m saying is if they make a terrible decision that costs the club they can walk away. If they want to gamble on the club’s future they can then walk away. It’s the model that simply doesn’t work.

Bush wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

Totally missing the point again. In a trust run model they are not liable. Not once have I said they should be. What I’m saying is if they make a terrible decision that costs the club they can walk away. If they want to gamble on the club’s future they can then walk away. It’s the model that simply doesn’t work.

You keep trying to accentuate their mistakes and the negatives, but never anything positive. Why? Oddly enough when next years accounts are released it will likeky show that Gavin's three year tenure has yielded a healthy profit, we will also still be in league 2.

What is your alternative plan?

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Bush wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

Totally missing the point again. In a trust run model they are not liable. Not once have I said they should be. What I’m saying is if they make a terrible decision that costs the club they can walk away. If they want to gamble on the club’s future they can then walk away. It’s the model that simply doesn’t work.

You keep trying to accentuate their mistakes and the negatives, but never anything positive. Why? Oddly enough when next years accounts are released it will likeky show that Gavin's three year tenure has yielded a healthy profit, we will also still be in league 2.

What is your alternative plan?

Why have you automatically protected Gavin when all I have mentioned is the board as a group?

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Bush wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

Totally missing the point again. In a trust run model they are not liable. Not once have I said they should be. What I’m saying is if they make a terrible decision that costs the club they can walk away. If they want to gamble on the club’s future they can then walk away. It’s the model that simply doesn’t work.

You keep trying to accentuate their mistakes and the negatives, but never anything positive. Why? Oddly enough when next years accounts are released it will likeky show that Gavin's three year tenure has yielded a healthy profit, we will also still be in league 2.

What is your alternative plan?

And in fact I was very vocal about how well I thought the board handled the Spurs ticket situation and have praised many of their schemes at bringing in more fans through the gates.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Bush wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:Why should the directors be liable for any debt? We vote them on to make decisions on our behalf, if people do not like what they are doing they can call an EGM and provide a viable alternative.

Totally missing the point again. In a trust run model they are not liable. Not once have I said they should be. What I’m saying is if they make a terrible decision that costs the club they can walk away. If they want to gamble on the club’s future they can then walk away. It’s the model that simply doesn’t work.

You keep trying to accentuate their mistakes and the negatives, but never anything positive. Why? Oddly enough when next years accounts are released it will likeky show that Gavin's three year tenure has yielded a healthy profit, we will also still be in league 2.

What is your alternative plan?

He mentioned the board not you Gavin It’s clear to see who Alan G Bryant is.

Can we get Diane Abbott on this thread to provide some clarity on the numbers?

Alan
You are totally one eyed and are missing the point
Feeney was a mistake ...they happen
But to give him another shot at it let him sign a load of players after the end of season debacle
Big BIG mistake by the board
To sign Westland ok
But to let him sign all those players without getting rid
BIg Big mistake and put the club in serious jeopardy,
All the mistakes with ex staff and directors cost us a small fortune
BiG BIG mistake
With out the money sell ons the previous directors had in place we wouldn’t have a club now because of the horrendous mistakes the board made
Flynny was the only option we had no money to sign a new manager
Luckily for us all it worked out
Where do we go from here
Get a tidy board and get rid of Zig and Zag
Only way to progress
I wonder how the new board members are getting on ........????

PMG wrote:Alan
You are totally one eyed and are missing the point
Feeney was a mistake ...they happen
But to give him another shot at it let him sign a load of players after the end of season debacle
Big BIG mistake by the board
To sign Westland ok
But to let him sign all those players without getting rid
BIg Big mistake and put the club in serious jeopardy,
All the mistakes with ex staff and directors cost us a small fortune
BiG BIG mistake
With out the money sell ons the previous directors had in place we wouldn’t have a club now because of the horrendous mistakes the board made
Flynny was the only option we had no money to sign a new manager
Luckily for us all it worked out
Where do we go from here
Get a tidy board and get rid of Zig and Zag
Only way to progress
I wonder how the new board members are getting on ........????

I'm glad 'Westland' signed all those players (despite not being to get rid of any - which was hardly surprising) or we would probably be currently negotiating a place in the Southern League western division (or worse).

rgds Dave

Collars wrote:Can we get Diane Abbott on this thread to provide some clarity on the numbers?

I think you're confusing her with Rudderless Amber

PMG wrote:Alan
You are totally one eyed and are missing the point
Feeney was a mistake ...they happen
But to give him another shot at it let him sign a load of players after the end of season debacle
Big BIG mistake by the board
To sign Westland ok
But to let him sign all those players without getting rid
BIg Big mistake and put the club in serious jeopardy,
All the mistakes with ex staff and directors cost us a small fortune
BiG BIG mistake
With out the money sell ons the previous directors had in place we wouldn’t have a club now because of the horrendous mistakes the board made
Flynny was the only option we had no money to sign a new manager
Luckily for us all it worked out
Where do we go from here
Get a tidy board and get rid of Zig and Zag
Only way to progress
I wonder how the new board members are getting on ........????

Don't be daft. 'Westland' had to sign players to keep us up. He tried to let players go but they weren't interested. Those players he signed, of course, were the reason we stayed in the FL

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Jimmy Exile wrote:hi stan. How do you figure that we lose 200 grand a year by not having the bar takings?

I've worked in pubs and the breweries charge a fortune for beer and bars are lucky to make a pound a pint sometimes and that's without having to pay staff

Let's say 250 home games over 10 years. Add to that the corporate events that could be held, not to mention weddings etc. £2,000,000 strikes me as a conservative estimate. You really must learn to think if you wish to progress from pulling pints for the rest of your days.

There you go stan. Belittling me for working as a barman.

Then lying about it on the Kit launch thread and calling me a liar for mentioning it.

Jimmy Exile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: You really must learn to think if you wish to progress from pulling pints for the rest of your days.

There you go stan. Belittling me for working as a barman.

Then lying about it on the Kit launch thread and calling me a liar for mentioning it.

How am I mocking being a barman? I am saying if you want to progress from pulling pints you need to learn to think.

Good advice which you clearly have failed to take.