My view is that the Trust model is the way forward for clubs like County. I don't have any problems with the notion that people with business experience should be involved in the running of the club but for me fan ownership is the way forward.

Clearly we are once again in financial trouble and some are expressing the view that we need outside investment. I disagree. I think it's not the model that is wrong but the way it has been implemented. Furthermore the likes of Sherman, the brothers Ford and Cyril Rogers hardly inspire confidence in the rich altruistic businessman.

So serious question. For those of you who do believe that we should be owned by an individual, what do you see as the advantages and how would you deal with the disadvantages?

The trust did a great job in providing the required 'emergency surgery' not so long ago. But I was wondering how much income is being generated by the trust at the moment ? How many ppl are making (for example) a monthly donation ?

rgds Dave

In my view (and I've said it for some time) we need to stop using the term "fan owned" and start using the expression "supporter funded".... the message needs to get across that we'll only have the size club the fans are able to fund.
The Benefits & Rewards Scheme needs revamping with fans putting in enough money combined to cover losses.

We need to be our OWN benefactor. To do that, the supporters have to be prepared to fund the club by regular donation.
It's regular donation that should underpin EVERYTHING else the club does financially.

PerthDave wrote:The trust did a great job in providing the required 'emergency surgery' not so long ago. But I was wondering how much income is being generated by the trust at the moment ? How many ppl are making (for example) a monthly donation ?

rgds Dave

Also see Cambridge United's owner comments yesterday regarding their perilous financial position, not that long after their money spinning FA cup run.

We've done this before, almost every club outside the Premier League has a tightrope existence - either dependant on a rich benefactor or on selling their young players and successful cup runs.

A sustainable model will keep us languishing in non-league obscurity that only appeals to football anoraks.

The Trust ownership penny has well and truly dropped for me. Im glad I was part of the fundraising that saved the club, but would I continue to provide funding indefinitely?

Not a chance.

So the club now has to come up with a plan B.

whoareya wrote:
Also see Cambridge United's owner comments yesterday regarding their perilous financial position, not that long after their money spinning FA cup run.

We've done this before, almost every club outside the Premier League has a tightrope existence - either dependant on a rich benefactor or on selling their young players and successful cup runs.

A sustainable model will keep us languishing in non-league obscurity that only appeals to football anoraks.

The Trust ownership penny has well and truly dropped for me. Im glad I was part of the fundraising that saved the club, but would I continue to provide funding indefinitely?

Not a chance.

So the club now has to come up with a plan B.

I understand that you think the club have to come up with a Plan B. That you are responding on this thread suggests you believe that should be a private individual(s) who finances the club. Why should such a person/persons do this? If it is to make money then properly managed why can't a supporter owned club do the same? If these people are purely altruistic why don't they simply effect their good works via the Trust model?

Personally I've never felt so happy that every decision made is in the best interests of the club than under the current model. However, if the club is to progress we would need some level of outside investment. The German 51% supporter owned with the remaining 49% external investment sounds like an ideal way forward but getting business people to put their hard earned into this type of model might be tricky.

I'm still chucking twenty quid a month into the furnace. That should keep the wolves from the door a bit longer, eh?

Business will be looking for benefits, be that direct financially or indirect marketing/image benefits.
Benefactors are living the dream, financial return is nice if it happens.

But the difference is that both already have the capital (real or imaginary) to put on the table.

I suppose a Trust could try a Man Utd model of borrowing against assets and future income, but what bank would lend to a club with little of both?

So a Trust model would have to rely on funding commitments from it's members and as much as I admire NewGroundRodney's sentiments, the response to the current and previous loyalty/funding initiatives has been woeful.
I buy a season ticket every year to get to half a dozen games - I don't mind that at all, but I'm not going to put any more in when others take umbrage if match day tickets go up by a quid a game.

whoareya wrote:Business will be looking for benefits, be that direct financially or indirect marketing/image benefits.
Benefactors are living the dream, financial return is nice if it happens.

But the difference is that both already have the capital (real or imaginary) to put on the table.

I suppose a Trust could try a Man Utd model of borrowing against assets and future income, but what bank would lend to a club with little of both?

So a Trust model would have to rely on funding commitments from it's members and as much as I admire NewGroundRodney's sentiments, the response to the current and previous loyalty/funding initiatives has been woeful.
I buy a season ticket every year to get to half a dozen games - I don't mind that at all, but I'm not going to put any more in when others take umbrage if match day tickets go up by a quid a game.

I understand your assessment of the Trust model. We agree that it is not working at Newport County. My view is that it could work if properly implemented. Now I see your point that it can't work, I don't agree but that's neither here nor there. However the purpose of my starting this thread is to ask those who favour the traditional local businessman running the club, is asking simply why that model would work?

In fifty odd years of supporting County the vast majority of the time business people owned and ran the club and as Cornish pointed out County being up the creek without a paddle was pretty much the order of the day.

We are now witnessing the weakness of Trust ownership, a business clearly lacking funds and managed by individuals with limited abilities. The latter point was always a concern for me, as people would get elected to the Board not purely on ability or skill set, but because they are perceived as 'good guys or gals'. We now have a Board that could rival the Chinese Communist Party in size and it beggars belief that they can make any decisions at all.

The amount of money wasted on tribunals etc is scandalous, as is the fact that our one and only asset at Spytty was seemingly not insured when it burnt down.

The off field activities are amateurish at best and my personal experience of dealing with the commercial dept does not fill me with any confidence. Gavin rightly comes in for criticism but at least he has the courage of his convictions and will make decisions, the trouble is it is not with his money. That is a fundamental difference with private ownership, the owner paying for his own mistakes.

With our playing budget reportedly decimated, you can already detect an air of dejection in Flynn's recent interviews, and without a cash injection I fear for our future in the League. In that last point is also a massive weakness of Trust ownership, as where is the cash to provide a competitive playing budget to come from? Portsmouth, arguably the richest of Trust owned clubs, saw the writing was on the wall and sold out their interests, we should too.

JonD wrote:I'm still chucking twenty quid a month into the furnace. That should keep the wolves from the door a bit longer, eh?

Well done. We need 1580 more people like you to do the same.

The Exeter City model c&p from the BBC website :

"To sell one youth player for £1m is something most League Two clubs would hope for maybe once a decade.

But Exeter City have produced three of them in the past three and a half years, and players from their academy have earned the club in excess of £5m in transfer fees.

In fact, the Grecians have sold players for fees totalling more than £3.5m during the past two transfer windows alone - while the rest of League Two's 23 clubs earned somewhere between £4m and £4.5m between them.

So how do they do it?

No other choice

The club is fan-owned, so there is no rich benefactor to throw large sums at transfer fees.

And while that has its problems - no free-flowing source of money and an ownership structure which allowed a group of supporters to effectively hand Tisdale his notice - it is good news for young players.


How do they do it?

Exeter have not been shy in investing in their academy - some of the money generated from the sale of Grimes to Swansea in January 2015, Ampadu to Chelsea earlier this season and Watkins to Brentford last July have gone into building a new synthetic pitch, improving grass surfaces and investing in other infrastructure.

"The club really support the academy with facilities. It doesn't just happen on its own, it needs investment for the academy to keep running, and it shows that there's some thought into the future."

whoareya wrote:The Exeter City model c&p from the BBC website :

"To sell one youth player for £1m is something most League Two clubs would hope for maybe once a decade.

But Exeter City have produced three of them in the past three and a half years, and players from their academy have earned the club in excess of £5m in transfer fees.

In fact, the Grecians have sold players for fees totalling more than £3.5m during the past two transfer windows alone - while the rest of League Two's 23 clubs earned somewhere between £4m and £4.5m between them.

So how do they do it?

No other choice

The club is fan-owned, so there is no rich benefactor to throw large sums at transfer fees.

And while that has its problems - no free-flowing source of money and an ownership structure which allowed a group of supporters to effectively hand Tisdale his notice - it is good news for young players.


How do they do it?

Exeter have not been shy in investing in their academy - some of the money generated from the sale of Grimes to Swansea in January 2015, Ampadu to Chelsea earlier this season and Watkins to Brentford last July have gone into building a new synthetic pitch, improving grass surfaces and investing in other infrastructure.

"The club really support the academy with facilities. It doesn't just happen on its own, it needs investment for the academy to keep running, and it shows that there's some thought into the future."

....which is why the likes of Touray & Foulston have to PLAY, and not be loaned out. They need to be around the set up on matchday, gain experience, start occasionally, come on as subs, and develop their game in our club's own environment. Game time on loan at Little Whippington FC is one thing, but seeing what they're capable of in the FL is what will attract the scouts from Championship Clubs....... Remember, crucially, Connor Washington was a LEAGUE player when he started getting proper transfer fees behind him. Mind you, I hope QPR get shot of him as soon as they like - but that's another debate, for another thread!

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:Gavin rightly comes in for criticism but at least he has the courage of his convictions and will make decisions, the trouble is it is not with his money. That is a fundamental difference with private ownership, the owner paying for his own mistakes.

This is the issue that I think needs to be resolved in the minds of many. The money being spent now is the income generated by the club, it's nothing to do with the funds raised to save the club three years ago, creating a shareholding big enough for the Trust to convene a Board, of which Gavin is Chairman.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:The off field activities are amateurish at best and my personal experience of dealing with the commercial dept does not fill me with any confidence. Gavin rightly comes in for criticism but at least he has the courage of his convictions and will make decisions, the trouble is it is not with his money. That is a fundamental difference with private ownership, the owner paying for his own mistakes.

These are my concerns also.

Having said that, wealthy club owners can screw up finances too.

There's an element of predictability about County's predicament. I believe, as long as I live, that County will struggle. It's almost as if there is something in the Newport psyche. Somehow, despite everyone's best efforts, we'll always find a way to screw things up.