I have no idea how the values are calculated but according to transfermarket we are the 23rd highest valued club in league 2 valued at £1.85m, sitting above Accrington Stanley who are valued at £1.73m whilst Mansfield are the most valued at £3.92m. I am genuinely not sure what would attract investors to a football club which has no ground or tangible assets but it would be interesting to know who these people are.

Problem with having a rich County mad nutter or a lottery winner is that it only leads to poor financial management. When the pot of gold inevitably dries up we are left up the creek again. Our club I suspect is not alone in having a live for today mentality.
Have our recent windfalls ( cup runs, transfers etc ) had the same effect? Have the board completely taken their collective eyes off the financial ball since February thinking every thing is fine again. The way money has been thrown around/away recently leads me to suspect this is the case.
No right minded business person could look at us as an investment. What have we to offer. A burnt out portakabin at Spytty is about it.
I agree that the German model seems the best fit for us but where does the 49% investment come from. I wish I had the answer but sadly I don't.
We need financial stability and without an income stream that will never be possible.
Let's not fool ourselves though. Whilst we have learned our lesson over the Lottery Les period, we would bite the hand off any potential investor who sees County as a short term plaything. That's the way football supporters are.
Long term we have to have something to offer and our own ground has to be the way.
If I had the money and came to the Port and offered give them say £15m and said it could be spent on building us a team to get us in the Championship or stay where we are for the next 10 years, albeit with a new ground, how many would take the former.
I cannot see any long term stability until we have our own ground.

Thankless task for a benefactor they are always criticised- look at the stick Les had to take and still does occasionally.
Without him we may well be a part time team as I said at the time to his critics be careful what you wish for.
I am not convinced fan ownership works particularly when some / many always want £5 games / cheap season tickets etc.
The club need more money it is clear to me that there is little relationship between price and attendance the floating fan will come to big games and big games only.
NGR has good ideas around subscription model but how do you sell this what is the benefit to me of contributing £15 per month? I would prefer to see higher ticket prices and higher drink costs etc. with County getting all the uplift in price I.e. coffee up to £1.75 County get the full 25p uplift this may need negotiating with WRU.
Otherwise we just wait for the next crisis unless we sell a player or have a cup run - supporting County has always been like this!

To those posters than believe a 51/49 split is the way forward - what does that really mean?

Other forum members will have more detail than me but this is a rough cut to put some reality to this.

Say the Trust has 70%?? With 30% already in private hands. (Anyone with the exact figs. Please)

So with the club 'valued to close to £2m that would translate into £1.4m in Trust holdings and £600k in private holdings - so another circa £400k could come into the club by going for the German model. Is that going injection of monies going to make a big difference, is that what is wanted? I can only assume that supporters of this model would then expect the private shareholders to contribute extra cash each season to help protect/grow the value of their £1m (minority 49%) stake. What if they don't/can't in any future years? Sorry I'm not seeing it.

Fourthousand wrote:To those posters than believe a 51/49 split is the way forward - what does that really mean?

Other forum members will have more detail than me but this is a rough cut to put some reality to this.

Say the Trust has 70%?? With 30% already in private hands. (Anyone with the exact figs. Please)

I think this is a crucial point, as I've asked before but never got an answer, even from those who obviously have connections on the Board.

When the Trust bought Les's shares, it was noted at the time that Matt Southall and Howard Greenhaff would be gifting their shareholding to the Trust.

Nothing has ever been confirmed since, and not a peep from any of the ITK's, so it could be assumed that HG's disagreement with the Trust over loan repayments might have stopped his shareholding gift, but what about MS?

It would not surprise me to find out that the Trust's overall shareholding is far less than was originally intended...............

whoareya wrote:

Fourthousand wrote:To those posters than believe a 51/49 split is the way forward - what does that really mean?

Other forum members will have more detail than me but this is a rough cut to put some reality to this.

Say the Trust has 70%?? With 30% already in private hands. (Anyone with the exact figs. Please)

I think this is a crucial point, as I've asked before but never got an answer, even from those who obviously have connections on the Board.

When the Trust bought Les's shares, it was noted at the time that Matt Southall and Howard Greenhaff would be gifting their shareholding to the Trust.

Nothing has ever been confirmed since, and not a peep from any of the ITK's, so it could be assumed that HG's disagreement with the Trust over loan repayments might have stopped his shareholding gift, but what about MS?

It would not surprise me to find out that the Trust's overall shareholding is far less than was originally intended...............

This is what I don't understand. What stops one of these shareholders from being on the board?

Bush wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Fourthousand wrote:To those posters than believe a 51/49 split is the way forward - what does that really mean?

Other forum members will have more detail than me but this is a rough cut to put some reality to this.

Say the Trust has 70%?? With 30% already in private hands. (Anyone with the exact figs. Please)

I think this is a crucial point, as I've asked before but never got an answer, even from those who obviously have connections on the Board.

When the Trust bought Les's shares, it was noted at the time that Matt Southall and Howard Greenhaff would be gifting their shareholding to the Trust.

Nothing has ever been confirmed since, and not a peep from any of the ITK's, so it could be assumed that HG's disagreement with the Trust over loan repayments might have stopped his shareholding gift, but what about MS?

It would not surprise me to find out that the Trust's overall shareholding is far less than was originally intended...............

This is what I don't understand. What stops one of these shareholders from being on the board?

I'm sure there are many reasons why - like time/other priorities/ past experiences/different current circumstances etc but for me there is two reasons that could always remain a constant/issue for me - if I didn't have overall control and so became compromised (which went against how I run my business) and two if I became exposed to any future bad debt by being on the board (and as in point one, not in control of the decisions that could hit me financially). I guess there is a third - could I work with guys who I didn't see as my business equals (ego's).

There was only one true option when the Trust were offered the opportunity to buy Les' shares - raise the money needed and then contribute monthly to keep the club ticking over.

I don't understand why it's taken people so long to realise this...

wattsville_boy wrote:There was only one true option when the Trust were offered the opportunity to buy Les' shares - raise the money needed and then contribute monthly to keep the club ticking over.

I don't understand why it's taken people so long to realise this...

Hindsight eh?

However I have yet to hear one positive argument as to why private ownership is better than the Trust model.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:However I have yet to hear one positive argument as to why private ownership is better than the Trust model.

That question can only be considered when details of the suggested 'private ownership' are forthcoming. There's never been any such an offer put forward.

excessbee wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:However I have yet to hear one positive argument as to why private ownership is better than the Trust model.

That question can only be considered when details of the suggested 'private ownership' are forthcoming. There's never been any such an offer put forward.

Sorry but that is simply incorrect.

OK. Rumours about a Dean Holdsworth consortium, but anything of substance?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:However I have yet to hear one positive argument as to why private ownership is better than the Trust model.

There isn’t one really. If you strip it right back it’s simply whether you prefer security or high risk excitement. I’m a risk taker by nature so I’m happy to take the rough with the smooth.

We’re living beyond our means under fan ownership so little difference in reality.

If we do go down that route again I’d like to think that the trust would continue fundraising and raising their profile in aid of a stadium and/or a rainy day fund.

The owners of Newport County should have a say who should be chairman.

Have an open meeting where the future Chairman puts himself forward at that meeting and is then given 28 days to come up with a plan on how he is going to take Newport County forward.