Very important that we all get to give as much information as we can during this consultation period.
The final vote will be taken by Trust members after the feedback has been evaluated.

Closing date is 4th July so here's our chance to make our thoughts known:

https://www.newport-county.co.uk/news/2 ... sultation/

Did mine 2 hours ago... go me!

I have a problem with the survey in that the fundamental question of ownership is presented as a simplistic choice. The facts are that all three choices have their merits depending on the current and future vision and aspirations of the club. They are also presented with absolutely NO detailed breakdown of how each choice would impact upon the club, so we are effectively being asked to give an opinion on something without any context or background data, strategy or vision. I really don’t know given no supporting information on how each choice impacts upon the club now or in the medium term, how anyone can cast a vote. PLEASE give us your strategy and vision under each category, and then I can vote based upon my considered response to each scenario. You can’t survive in business like this....

There are spaces for comments, so if you have any caveats to your preference put them in there.

Well unfortunately they've laid the survey out in such a way, although it's not just ticking boxes, there is plenty of opportunity to give your thoughts in your own words, which is what I've done each time I felt I needed to.
Plenty of boxes to "please give further information" etc....
I think what they're looking for initially is to see whether there is any massive swell of opinion in one direction particulary.
Logically, anyone ticking "put the club up for sale" couldn't possibly know fully how that'd impact on the Club 'til they knew who the buyer might be.
At this stage, I think it's just to test the water.

AmberRundgren. wrote:I have a problem with the survey in that the fundamental question of ownership is presented as a simplistic choice. The facts are that all three choices have their merits depending on the current and future vision and aspirations of the club. They are also presented with absolutely NO detailed breakdown of how each choice would impact upon the club, so we are effectively being asked to give an opinion on something without any context or background data, strategy or vision. I really don’t know given no supporting information on how each choice impacts upon the club now or in the medium term, how anyone can cast a vote. PLEASE give us your strategy and vision under each category, and then I can vote based upon my considered response to each scenario. You can’t survive in business like this....

I agree - the live blog from last night's supporter meeting implied that the club is in a robust financial position, virtually no debt and quite possibly the envy of other FL clubs, so how could (or would) any supporter choose to change the current model, without being given a clear strategy with deliverables?

For the record, I am really pleased that the board have decided to ask the opinion of the membership on this issue. It's too important to make executive decisions on as I've said before, and at least if it turns out the vast majority actually do want trust ownership then the likes of me will have to shut up and accept democracy in action.

rncfc wrote:For the record, I am really pleased that the board have decided to ask the opinion of the membership on this issue. It's too important to make executive decisions on as I've said before, and at least if it turns out the vast majority actually do want trust ownership then the likes of me will have to shut up and accept democracy in action.

At this stage, the survey is open to all supporters. If there is a massive swell towards disbanding the Trust Owned model, then it'll go to the vote for TRUST MEMBERS to decide upon.
I believe, IIRC, this always was the case, that if we got rid of the Trust Owned model, it would require a "yes" vote to that effect, with I believe a minimum of 75% required.
So we need to ensure our TRUST MEMBERSHIP IS UP TO DATE, because if it comes to a vote, it's possible there may be some sort of restriction along the lines of : "Voting is open to supporters who are Trust members, and were enrolled before 4th July 2018" for example....... so let's make sure that initially we are all TRUST MEMBERS so we get the right to vote if needed.

Worthy of note, is the fact that we have an average number of County fans at home games of 3162.
Some will be children and U-16s etc, but it still suggests that possibly some 600 fans who attend home games are NOT TRUST MEMBERS...... we need these people to join up in case their vote is needed.

Good to see the survey - arguably, the Trust should've been engaging in this sort of dialogue more regularly!

My response focussed on two things:

1) That I prefer the Trust model to being at the mercy of private owners whose interests may not always align with those of the club. The problem as I see it is that we're victims of our own success, and our support cannot sustain the Trust model at league level. If that means dropping a level or two in order to make the club fan-owned and sustainable, that's something I could tolerate (sad though it would be). I suspect I'm in a minority on that - but a sustainable, fan-owned club playing good football in a ground with decent atmosphere near the city centre is far more important to me than over-reaching ourselves or ending up at the mercy of a private owner with malign motives.

2) The existing split between Trust Board and Club Board is deeply unsatisfactory. If fans vote their fellow fans onto the Trust Board, it stands to reason that we want those people to run the club - not to be sidelined so that cliques can co-opt other people onto the Club Board keep elected Trustees in the dark about things.

Kairdiff Exile wrote:Good to see the survey - arguably, the Trust should've been engaging in this sort of dialogue more regularly!

My response focussed on two things:

1) That I prefer the Trust model to being at the mercy of private owners whose interests may not always align with those of the club. The problem as I see it is that we're victims of our own success, and our support cannot sustain the Trust model at league level. If that means dropping a level or two in order to make the club fan-owned and sustainable, that's something I could tolerate (sad though it would be). I suspect I'm in a minority on that - but a sustainable, fan-owned club playing good football in a ground with decent atmosphere near the city centre is far more important to me than over-reaching ourselves or ending up at the mercy of a private owner with malign motives.

2) The existing split between Trust Board and Club Board is deeply unsatisfactory. If fans vote their fellow fans onto the Trust Board, it stands to reason that we want those people to run the club - not to be sidelined so that cliques can co-opt other people onto the Club Board keep elected Trustees in the dark about things.

On the first point, I agree that fans should be surveyed more regularly on various matters, perhaps starting with the question: "What should the money raised by the B&R Scheme be spent on?"

On the second point, whatever level we're at, funding from fans needs to increase massively. At our current position in the League structure, we need at LEAST something like 1500 fans donating an average of £20 per month = £360,000per year (cover losses)

newgroundrodney wrote:On the second point, whatever level we're at, funding from fans needs to increase massively. At our current position in the League structure, we need at LEAST something like 1500 fans donating an average of £20 per month = £360,000per year (cover losses)

You see, this is where I part company with some of these traditional arguments. Rather than trying to squeeze £20 a month more out of the same old people, why aren't we trying to get 1500 new fans to come to a game once a month? That'd raise the same amount, improve the atmosphere and make us more sustainable in the long term by increasing the fanbase. That's where the sustainability and growth lies.

I'm not for a moment saying it's easy - but I am saying that we're utterly crap at it compared to other clubs at our level. Just to give one current example of lousy marketing - yesterday's GDPR e-mails were a case in point. Issued about a fortnight too late to get a decent signup rate, took people to a page that required completion rather than being auto-populated with data, and hard to navigate on a mobile. Net result? We'll lose a few thousand people off our mailing list. All because whoever was in charge of the GDPR stuff left it too late and lacked the technological know-how. A small example, but one that I'd guess will cost us at the gate next season because we'll be unable to communicate with the semi-engaged fans whose money is desperately needed to supplement what we get from the die-hards.

Kairdiff Exile wrote:

newgroundrodney wrote:On the second point, whatever level we're at, funding from fans needs to increase massively. At our current position in the League structure, we need at LEAST something like 1500 fans donating an average of £20 per month = £360,000per year (cover losses)

You see, this is where I part company with some of these traditional arguments. Rather than trying to squeeze £20 a month more out of the same old people, why aren't we trying to get 1500 new fans to come to a game once a month? That'd raise the same amount, improve the atmosphere and make us more sustainable in the long term by increasing the fanbase. That's where the sustainability and growth lies.

I'm not for a moment saying it's easy - but I am saying that we're utterly crap at it compared to other clubs at our level. Just to give one current example of lousy marketing - yesterday's GDPR e-mails were a case in point. Issued about a fortnight too late to get a decent signup rate, took people to a page that required completion rather than being auto-populated with data, and hard to navigate on a mobile. Net result? We'll lose a few thousand people off our mailing list. All because whoever was in charge of the GDPR stuff left it too late and lacked the technological know-how. A small example, but one that I'd guess will cost us at the gate next season because we'll be unable to communicate with the semi-engaged fans whose money is desperately needed to supplement what we get from the die-hards.

I entirely take your point on the marketing issue, but the truth is, we're around 630 (25%) County fans up on last season for home games. I think any further increase will only be achieved by moving up a division in time. I estimate an increase next year of 7% if we have a middling sort of season........what you're asking for is 47% increase, ON TOP of last season's 25%. That's a massive ask for us at the stage we're at.
If we want a supporter funded club, more of us need to dig in.

You only have to look at the pathetic response to this forum's player sponsorship to see that even gently encouraging people to part with as little as a tenner is tortuous. With the amount of busy ******* on here, we should have kitted out the entire squad by now.

newgroundrodney wrote:Worthy of note, is the fact that we have an average number of County fans at home games of 3162.
Some will be children and U-16s etc, but it still suggests that possibly some 600 fans who attend home games are NOT TRUST MEMBERS...... we need these people to join up in case their vote is needed.

Sorry but that is incorrect.
it was stated that we raised £10K last season via the £10 fees equating to around a thousand trust members (its in writing)
If 75% of those turned up every match we would be lucky.
Very much doubt if even 25% of home supporters are in the trust probably a lot less.