https://www.ncafctrust.org/news/notes-f ... d-meeting/

One may dare say these read as quite positive.

Papski wrote:https://www.ncafctrust.org/news/notes-f ... d-meeting/

One may dare say these read as quite positive.

Agree in part, what disappoints is still no reference to any activity to try and fulfill the members desire to move towards a hybrid model, or indeed on RP lease renewal negotiations.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

Papski wrote:https://www.ncafctrust.org/news/notes-f ... d-meeting/

One may dare say these read as quite positive.

Agree in part, what disappoints is still no reference to any activity to try and fulfill the members desire to move towards a hybrid model, or indeed on RP lease renewal negotiations.

.....what members' desire to move towards a hybrid? It hasn't been voted on formally. All that's happened is a questionnaire was put out which ANYONE could reply to, even MORE THAN ONCE, so to some extent, the members' wishes on this are not known. And anyway, it'll require a 75% majority to go ahead.

newgroundrodney wrote:

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

Papski wrote:https://www.ncafctrust.org/news/notes-f ... d-meeting/

One may dare say these read as quite positive.

Agree in part, what disappoints is still no reference to any activity to try and fulfill the members desire to move towards a hybrid model, or indeed on RP lease renewal negotiations.

.....what members' desire to move towards a hybrid? It hasn't been voted on formally. All that's happened is a questionnaire was put out which ANYONE could reply to, even MORE THAN ONCE, so to some extent, the members' wishes on this are not known. And anyway, it'll require a 75% majority to go ahead.

Last September it was said it would be discussed by the membership in the first quarter of 2019, yet in all the Board minutes since then it has not even merited a mention.

One thing that seems patently obvious to me - hopefully we are using the skills of a Chartered Accountant in our fan base who can offer tax advice for free (or as near to free as is fair and reasonable) rather than paying a firm thousands of pounds a year?

A quick email to the trust membership here could possibly save us money if this isn't already being done....

I am surprised that according to some there were so many that were aggrieved at not having the opportunity to take over a club laden with debt and no assets, yet they do not seem interested when we have money in the bank.

Alan G Bryant wrote:I am surprised that according to some there were so many that were aggrieved at not having the opportunity to take over a club laden with debt and no assets, yet they do not seem interested when we have money in the bank.

In all fairness, would we even be told if people were interested in taking over?

Any interest that may have been out there will be long gone now anyway. Now that the WRU have taken over RP it is a poisoned chalice, because nobody will want to be in charge at a time where we run the risk of losing our FL place through non-footballing reasons.

rncfc wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:I am surprised that according to some there were so many that were aggrieved at not having the opportunity to take over a club laden with debt and no assets, yet they do not seem interested when we have money in the bank.

In all fairness, would we even be told if people were interested in taking over?

Any interest that may have been out there will be long gone now anyway. Now that the WRU have taken over RP it is a poisoned chalice, because nobody will want to be in charge at a time where we run the risk of losing our FL place through non-footballing reasons.

I can only speak for myself , but if I was head of a powerful consortium being kept from taking over the club by a dozen or so volunteers, I would make my interest public.

As for your latter point , I would argue that since the relative success and publicity of our club the last two years we are in a much stronger position than 2016.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

rncfc wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:I am surprised that according to some there were so many that were aggrieved at not having the opportunity to take over a club laden with debt and no assets, yet they do not seem interested when we have money in the bank.

In all fairness, would we even be told if people were interested in taking over?

Any interest that may have been out there will be long gone now anyway. Now that the WRU have taken over RP it is a poisoned chalice, because nobody will want to be in charge at a time where we run the risk of losing our FL place through non-footballing reasons.

I can only speak for myself , but if I was head of a powerful consortium being kept from taking over the club by a dozen or so volunteers, I would make my interest public.

As for your latter point , I would argue that since the relative success and publicity of our club the last two years we are in a much stronger position than 2016.

I seem to recall that the preference of the recent survey was for a hybrid model rather than an individual or consortium to 'take over the club' ?

Alan G Bryant wrote:

rncfc wrote:

Alan G Bryant wrote:I am surprised that according to some there were so many that were aggrieved at not having the opportunity to take over a club laden with debt and no assets, yet they do not seem interested when we have money in the bank.

In all fairness, would we even be told if people were interested in taking over?

Any interest that may have been out there will be long gone now anyway. Now that the WRU have taken over RP it is a poisoned chalice, because nobody will want to be in charge at a time where we run the risk of losing our FL place through non-footballing reasons.

I can only speak for myself , but if I was head of a powerful consortium being kept from taking over the club by a dozen or so volunteers, I would make my interest public.

As for your latter point , I would argue that since the relative success and publicity of our club the last two years we are in a much stronger position than 2016.

I think that the extent you have gone to in trying to prove your point here for a number of years now, only makes you appear as though you are protecting your own interests.

The fans have indicated what their preferred ownership model would be. I would be interested to know what, if anything is being done to try and progress that.

Personally, I don't think it's going to be possible to achieve. Private investors will want control, ego massaging, or both. A hybrid model will only work if you can find some sort of excessively wealthy benefactor looking for a hobby.

For me the most important issue facing our club is that we only have security of tenure at Rodney Parade for another four seasons.

Reading the minutes there seems to me to be three possibilities.

Firstly that the board are not talking about the issue. Which is incompetent. Secondly they are talking about it but not informing us, which is worrying. Thirdly an inner sanctum are talking about it but not telling the full board, which is worrying, incompetent and devious.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Thirdly an inner sanctum are talking about it but not telling the full board, which is worrying, incompetent and devious.

Shame you bottled it and disappeared up your own rectum when it came to the crunch of standing for election ay, sounds like you'd fit right in what with your form

Ironsider wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Thirdly an inner sanctum are talking about it but not telling the full board, which is worrying, incompetent and devious.

Shame you bottled it and disappeared up your own rectum when it came to the crunch of standing for election ay, sounds like you'd fit right in what with your form

Be that as it may, unless we sort out our stadium problem it's back to Spytty and Conference South. And I can't imagine anyone boasting on Twitter about not having to queue to buy four tickets to watch us play Bishops Stortford.

Stan we're all worried as fans about the stadium situation so I get that emotion/concern, but I fail to see how this board could be labelled incompetent or devious. Do you honestly believe these dscussions haven't been taking place for a long time in fact. I prefer to give a bit more credit and because the outcome is so important I'd rather go with cautious and professional.

supporter wrote:Stan we're all worried as fans about the stadium situation so I get that emotion/concern, but I fail to see how this board could be labelled incompetent or devious. Do you honestly believe these dscussions haven't been taking place for a long time in fact. I prefer to give a bit more credit and because the outcome is so important I'd rather go with cautious and professional.

If discussion has taken place, why has it not been minuted. The club can legitimately claim that the detail of the discussion needs to be kept confidential, I don't agree but can see the argument. I don't think that there is an argument for not saying that the discussion is taking place. Which would be devious.

If the discussion is not taking place it is incompetent. If you breakdown your analysis you are saying I am sure the board have this in hand. Give as much credit as you wish, I would like to give credit also. But those of us who remember the 1980's are more wary. It is our club now. Not asking questions is not an option for me.