Justanordinaryfan wrote:Let me make it clear Stan ... I’m certainly not criticising you ..... just makes me laugh about people who criticised the club for lack of clarity previously.

For me every single board of directors that have had responsibility over the last thirty years have failed to engage with the single biggest problem we have. I don't know what the solution is. But two points strike me. Firstly that not one single director has said firstly that Spytty Park is not suitable for League football or latterly that being tenants of a landlord who in essence is our rival for the disposable income of the sporting public of Newport is a recipe for disaster.

Two points arise from this. Until the club acknowledge this problem it can't be solved.

Secondly I don't know what the solution is but I do know that virtually all the towns of Newport's size have found a solution and I refuse to believe that the people of Newport are lesser beings than the good people of anywhere else. So instead of having the losing mentality of 'we can't afford it' my view is that we need to have the mentality of 'we can't afford not to, let's work together to find a 'solution'.

flat4 wrote:I hope this is fake news, but i fear it is just another nail in the coffin, i just wish people would listen when some one stands up in the meetings we have, 2 days after i stood up and asked the question about the redevelopment of Rodney Parade, ( which was denied by the top table) the WRU announced there plans for Rodney Parade.
If FIFA deemed Spytty fit for purpose for a World Cup match, then why do the FA deem it not suitable for our football club.

Spytty has a running track. As such Spytty can and perhaps does meet the requirements for League football. It will never be suitable for League football.

flat4 wrote:I hope this is fake news, but i fear it is just another nail in the coffin, i just wish people would listen when some one stands up in the meetings we have, 2 days after i stood up and asked the question about the redevelopment of Rodney Parade, ( which was denied by the top table) the WRU announced there plans for Rodney Parade.
If FIFA deemed Spytty fit for purpose for a World Cup match, then why do the FA deem it not suitable for our football club.

In fairness, the 'World Cup' game was one of little significance. Had it been of any importance, with the anticipation of any kind of sizeable crowd, then Newport Stadium would not have been anywhere near suitable. Frankly they could have played that game at almost anywhere.
For the EFL, whose standards we're required to meet, Newport Stadium also falls short at the moment. How FAR short I'm not certain, but have we made any kind of APPROACH with a view to going back if necessary?..... would they have us back? who would pay for any upgrading to EFL standards?

Has to be better than training behind a public house along the A48, as seen by my wife when dining there.
I wonder what our NEW main sponsor is making of all this.

daftasfxxx wrote:You really have to fear for professional sport in Newport, firstly doubling our rent and now playing hardball on facilities.
Dragons won't escape either and have already had any recognition with our city dropped from their name and if rumour has it will be shipped up to north Wales as soon as their licence runs out.
Well done NCC on allowing this to happen right under their noses.

I'd take all the whispers and gossip with a large pinch of salt. There is no provision or right in any lease agreement to simply double the rent for no reason. I would suggest the WRU are merely applying all rights for payment that the lease already contained.

Also this rumour about them not allowing the County the use of the Facilities (usually a capital F to identify a Defined Term) can easily be challenged by anyone with a reasonable understanding of lease agreements. It would be incomprehensible for both parties to have reached the point of Default and Termination without there being leaks from the ITK snides, because the club leaks information like a sieve.

whoareya wrote:

daftasfxxx wrote:You really have to fear for professional sport in Newport, firstly doubling our rent and now playing hardball on facilities.
Dragons won't escape either and have already had any recognition with our city dropped from their name and if rumour has it will be shipped up to north Wales as soon as their licence runs out.
Well done NCC on allowing this to happen right under their noses.

I'd take all the whispers and gossip with a large pinch of salt. There is no provision or right in any lease agreement to simply double the rent for no reason. I would suggest the WRU are merely applying all rights for payment that the lease already contained.

Also this rumour about them not allowing the County the use of the Facilities (usually a capital F to identify a Defined Term) can easily be challenged by anyone with a reasonable understanding of lease agreements. It would be incomprehensible for both parties to have reached the point of Default and Termination without there being leaks from the ITK snides, because the club leaks information like a sieve.

If you really want to enlighten the readership of this board about the law regarding a lease you might try reading the case of Street v Mountford. (1985)UK HL 4. There you will see set out the difference between a lease and a license. Now in this case the landlord was trying to screw over the tenant by calling a lease a license. He failed because as the court said a four pronged implement for digging is a fork and it remains a fork even if you call it a spade.

Sadly Newport County AFC undoubtedly have a license and not a lease.

Until otherwise confirmed officially it remains rumour.

Coming at it from the opposite direction Newport RFC lost RP because they could not service the debt against the ground. Is it now the case that they were losing a significant income by failing to charge County what they were entitled to? Ironic if in helping County, intentially or not, they lost the ground putting County in a more vulnerable position. What a tangled web.

This is not good at all.
Not a word out of the board.
The shop must be having a huge refit taking over a month.
Blimey you could refit M & S quicker.
Neon & The Ivy Bush are now being spoken about.
Forget about the players as this is looking pretty serious now.
So we haven't paid our bill?
Sure AGB & Jimmy Exile will have answers as usual.
Wool over eyes comes into my mind straight away here.

What about all the new clarity we were promised ?

jollysuperstar wrote:This is not good at all.
Not a word out of the board.
The shop must be having a huge refit taking over a month.
Blimey you could refit M & S quicker.
Neon & The Ivy Bush are now being spoken about.
Forget about the players as this is looking pretty serious now.
So we haven't paid our bill?
Sure AGB & Jimmy Exile will have answers as usual.
Wool over eyes comes into my mind straight away here.

I've not seen anything to the effect that we haven't paid our bill, only that the staging cost element had doubled, but from info and comments my inference is that it has only gone up to the level it should have been all along.... so not REALLY an increase, just FEELS like an increase. That's how I understand it.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

whoareya wrote:

daftasfxxx wrote:You really have to fear for professional sport in Newport, firstly doubling our rent and now playing hardball on facilities.
Dragons won't escape either and have already had any recognition with our city dropped from their name and if rumour has it will be shipped up to north Wales as soon as their licence runs out.
Well done NCC on allowing this to happen right under their noses.

I'd take all the whispers and gossip with a large pinch of salt. There is no provision or right in any lease agreement to simply double the rent for no reason. I would suggest the WRU are merely applying all rights for payment that the lease already contained.

Also this rumour about them not allowing the County the use of the Facilities (usually a capital F to identify a Defined Term) can easily be challenged by anyone with a reasonable understanding of lease agreements. It would be incomprehensible for both parties to have reached the point of Default and Termination without there being leaks from the ITK snides, because the club leaks information like a sieve.

If you really want to enlighten the readership of this board about the law regarding a lease you might try reading the case of Street v Mountford. (1985)UK HL 4. There you will see set out the difference between a lease and a license. Now in this case the landlord was trying to screw over the tenant by calling a lease a license. He failed because as the court said a four pronged implement for digging is a fork and it remains a fork even if you call it a spade.

Sadly Newport County AFC undoubtedly have a license and not a lease.

If you really wanted to enlighten the readership, you would post the document here - the document that you have referred to as both 'agreement' and licence.

You've posted elsewhere that you've got it and have already sent it on, so what's stopping you posting it?

The license clearly states
The Club shall permit NCAFC to sell their merchandise in the Club shop.
If they refuse to do so, in my opinion we should deduct the cost of proving our own shop from our payments under the license.

Of course if there is no Club shop, that confused matters somewhat

Amberexile wrote:The license clearly states
The Club shall permit NCAFC to sell their merchandise in the Club shop.
If they refuse to do so, in my opinion we should deduct the cost of proving our own shop from our payments under the license.

Of course if there is no Club shop, that confused matters somewhat

didn't "The Club Shop", at the outset, at the time of signing, refer in reality to the RUGBY club shop?.....cos that's where we were.

Amberexile wrote:The license clearly states
The Club shall permit NCAFC to sell their merchandise in the Club shop.
If they refuse to do so, in my opinion we should deduct the cost of proving our own shop from our payments under the license.

Of course if there is no Club shop, that confused matters somewhat

Thanks for that, is there anything in it about Disputed Amounts that the licensee can withhold regarding payments, or the Dispute Resolution Procedure that both parties have to follow to conclusion before Default and Termination, not going straight to lock-out/exclusion from premises.

I've been through both situations in real life, whereas others just post Googled examples of Case Law.........

Anyway, Season Tickets on sale at The Neon.