Lysaght Dancer - I don't think I am getting my kickers in a twist. But just to satisfy you, I'll restate things on an entirely objective basis without any personal opinions:

Rob resigned citing issues around transparency. The Board's response is a very brief statement which makes no mention of any of the questions which have legitimately been raised by many fans around sponsorship, our status at Rodney Parade as tenants of the WRU, or the club's finances.

You've got to admit, that's not a good look for the Board, is it? I think people are right to feel an increasing sense of unease in such circumstances.

Kairdiff Exile wrote:Lysaght Dancer - I don't think I am getting my kickers in a twist. But just to satisfy you, I'll restate things on an entirely objective basis without any personal opinions:

Rob resigned citing issues around transparency. The Board's response is a very brief statement which makes no mention of any of the questions which have legitimately been raised by many fans around sponsorship, our status at Rodney Parade as tenants of the WRU, or the club's finances.

You've got to admit, that's not a good look for the Board, is it? I think people are right to feel an increasing sense of unease in such circumstances.

Did Rob cite ‘issues’ with transparency or did he say he couldn’t ‘deliver’ transparency?

Could it be that he realised that legal and commercial contraints meant that he couldn’t be as transparent as he wanted to be, therefore resigned on that basis?

It all depends on how you want to look at it, doesn’t it?

Atleast rob got a thank you unlike Simon and Neil last week!

I think we're arguing semantics now. People can draw their own conclusions and decide what/who to believe, especially from a poster who only joined yesterday and has ten posts to his/her name!

For me, it's not just Rob Santwris' resignation and the lack if info regarding it, but rather, it's the whole issue of the lack of information. I won't believe, because I cannot believe, that every single aspect of every issue is confidential.
For example, what would be the problem in releasing SOME info when it's known, either good or bad, such as:

"Newport County AFC are pleased to announce that full merchandising will be available at the stadium, including match days, in a shared club shop, in the original location we jointly occupied when first moving into Rodney Parade. The club wish to place on record our thanks for the assistance provided by the stadium management in facilitating this shared venture, which will commence on Monday 1st,October, with the Kingsway Shop closing on the Friday before."........ no mention of costs, no mention of staff wages, lighting bills, or any other commercially sensitive information. Just a simple statement to tell us WHAT'S happening, either good or bad.

Kairdiff Exile wrote:I think we're arguing semantics now. People can draw their own conclusions and decide what/who to believe, especially from a poster who only joined yesterday and has ten posts to his/her name!

Oh is this place like the masons then where you have to serve for an amount of time before being allowed to speak?

Lysaght Dancer wrote:

Kairdiff Exile wrote:I think we're arguing semantics now. People can draw their own conclusions and decide what/who to believe, especially from a poster who only joined yesterday and has ten posts to his/her name!

Oh is this place like the masons then where you have to serve for an amount of time before being allowed to speak?

A bit like our board of directors, by all accounts?

The problem about serving on boards is that there is a collective responsibility. Issues are voted on, probably after frank discussion. You may be in a minority of one, and you may well be right with your minority view, but you either put up with losing the case you put and raise it again as the opportunity presents or you resign from the role.

I've no idea whether any of the following applies to our board, but I guess it probably does, at least in part:

18. What is the scope of a director's duties and personal liability to the company, shareholders and third parties?
Directors of UK companies are subject to fiduciary (meaning to be in a position of trust) and other duties owed to the company. In summary, directors owe duties to:
Act within the powers conferred by the company's constitution.
Promote the success of the company.
Exercise independent judgement.
Exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.
Avoid conflicts of interest.
Not accept benefits from third parties.
Declare interests in (proposed) transactions or arrangements.
These duties are codified in the Companies Act 2006 and are (save for the duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence) enforceable as fiduciary duties. The remedies for breach of a fiduciary duty include:
Injunctive relief.
Setting aside the transaction (at the company's request).
Restitution and account of profits.
Damages.
The remedy for a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence is damages for losses suffered.
Directors also owe a duty of confidentiality to the company, and the terms on which they are engaged by the company, especially in the case of executive directors, may impose or give rise to further duties and obligations.

So, if this is similar to our rules of governance this likely poses an onerous burden on any director/board member who campaigns on transparency in an election. And I wonder whether that duty of confidentiality continues on resignation, unless it's to whistle blow on any actual wrongdoing.

So, Rob may have wittingly or unwittingly placed himself between a rock and a hard place during election, promising something he could not ultimately deliver because of the rules of governance. Until he speaks further, we can only conjecture. Perhaps he should speak of what he can on here.

newgroundrodney wrote:For me, it's not just Rob Santwris' resignation and the lack if info regarding it, but rather, it's the whole issue of the lack of information. I won't believe, because I cannot believe, that every single aspect of every issue is confidential.
For example, what would be the problem in releasing SOME info when it's known, either good or bad, such as:

"Newport County AFC are pleased to announce that full merchandising will be available at the stadium, including match days, in a shared club shop, in the original location we jointly occupied when first moving into Rodney Parade. The club wish to place on record our thanks for the assistance provided by the stadium management in facilitating this shared venture, which will commence on Monday 1st,October, with the Kingsway Shop closing on the Friday before."........ no mention of costs, no mention of staff wages, lighting bills, or any other commercially sensitive information. Just a simple statement to tell us WHAT'S happening, either good or bad.

This sums up my feelings exactly. A cynic may believe that the 'commercially sensitive' quote is a smoke screen for incompetence.

When we do eventually have a statement about these 'commercially sensitive' issues i do hope it going to be worth the wait, because i like so many others i suspect are getting well p****d off .

I’m guessing if we are taking legal action against the WRU then it is obviously sensitive and the club cannot say too much but surely it can be mentioned in a statement that we are considering this course of action and the fans need to wait for further information. At present nothing is being said which will always cause unrest.

What legal action could we be taking against the WRU?

But perhaps the situation hasn't changed since Kevin Ward made that statement back in May(June?). Likely not. I think if it has got as far as actual legal proceedings by either party we would know that.

So, is a further holding statement that we are still in discussion with our landlords warranted?

Would such a statement add anything to what we know already, or are allowed to know w/o affecting any confidentialities?

Would such a further holding statement stop the gossip?

I don't know the answers to the first two questions, as I can see arguments for and against a further holding statement.

Amberexile wrote:What legal action could we be taking against the WRU?

No idea but I would guess something to do with the contract being broken. The fact everyone keeps saying we can’t say anything screams legal action to me. Thought that was obvious to everyone.

Legal action against the WRU, for which I have not seen a shred of evidence, would surely be tantamount to County serving notice on themselves that they will not be renewing the RP agreement.

Bush wrote:

Amberexile wrote:What legal action could we be taking against the WRU?

No idea but I would guess something to do with the contract being broken. The fact everyone keeps saying we can’t say anything screams legal action to me. Thought that was obvious to everyone.

That's the problem, we have a contract and if the WRU are in breach of it and fail to rectify that breach, our remedy is that we can terminate the contract which isn't in our best interests.