Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:The manifesto you’re talking about was tweaked AFTER he had submitted it on time if I recall correctly.
Also, didn’t you withdraw from it after you said you were going to go for it and published your ‘stanifesto’ ?

No I did not withdraw. You can not withdraw if you are not allowed to enter.

The point is that you can make a strong case for adhering strictly to the rules. You can make strong case for allowing a slip rule, that is bending the rules to ensure fairness.

What you can't do is to have one set of rules that everyone has to adhere to but make exceptions for an elite.

Oh hang on a moment!!!!??

No, that’s not what happened Brend come on. You said you were going to go for it then pulled out of going for it BEFORE you went away. Nothing to do with not being allowed.
The club have done, and continue to do, many things wrong but that wasn’t one of them

If you recall there were two sets of elections. So convoluted was the rule that only one person stood for the first election. Nobody else, myself included had a clue what was going on. Charlie Hopkins. was elected unopposed. The second election was called over a very short period in April 2016. Whilst I was away.

Charlie spoke to me a short while later. I promised Charlie I would not divulge what his views of the board were. That he resigned after a few months might make you think what they were, to quote FU from House of Cards, I couldn't possibly comment.

But back on topic.

Having elections to the board of directors where some people don't get elected but the directors then co-opting new directors seems odd.

But frankly for me if anyone has the time and energy to serve the club in any capacity then I am more than happy to see them do so. Having just spent an hour or so going back over old threads on the subject the rhetoric remains the same.

One group, which includes me, complaining that there is far too much secrecy the other excusing the secrecy.

I did notice that in January 2018 trust membership was down to about 1,200. I wonder what it is now? Surely that can't be a secret.

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Forgot to mention that you do not need to be elected to be on the board.
Just get co opted on by a pal and unless somebody tells me different you never ever need to seek re election.
That's 2 of the current board totally un elected.

All good fun and the weather breaks tomorrow.

Arent those co-opted to the club board, not the Trust board?

Club Board is I believe the main most important part of the clubs running.
Just stating a fact that chaps can run "our club" without ever asking the membership.
Will never need to seek election.
Assume nothing to stop more mates being asked to join the table also.

Yes it is, but you were referring to the Trust board and mentioned until you were told differently.

So I have, you were wrong.

Brendan,we discussed this at the time.Fans on here were surprised as to why there was a 30 day time window to submit applications.This was,I guess,to allow for anyone who had booked holidays to still have plenty of time to get their details sent within the time.There was also plenty of dialogue ahead of this telling that elections were coming.You would have had to be living on the moon not to have known about it.I seem to remember Colin Everett reminding you of that in a letter to you when you complained that you wanted to be allowed to enter after the closing date.

Percy plunkett wrote:Brendan,we discussed this at the time.Fans on here were surprised as to why there was a 30 day time window to submit applications.This was,I guess,to allow for anyone who had booked holidays to still have plenty of time to get their details sent within the time.There was also plenty of dialogue ahead of this telling that elections were coming.You would have had to be living on the moon not to have known about it.I seem to remember Colin Everett reminding you of that in a letter to you when you complained that you wanted to be allowed to enter after the closing date.

That's not correct. Further I can assure you Colin Everett has never written to me.

However the point is that you either stick to the rules or you bend them. What you can't do and maintain credibility is to bend the rules when it suits you and not bend them when it doesn't. Not unless you're Dominic Cummings that is.

If you recall, I had no problem with the finding that my application was out of time. And said so. I did have a problem with others being able to bend the rules. I agree with Amberexile about how rules for co-opting go out the window when it suits.

That is the problem.

I'm not sure about "the rules for co-opting go out the window when it suits" although do believe that elections have been far from ideal over the years and Stan has some valid criticisms of this which have been discussed at length previously.

I believe 2016 is the year when Stan and I were swapping messages trying to understand fully the process and board make up in advance of the timetable being issued and nominations opening as he had issued his manifesto in advance. If I recall correctly, I was at the Northampton away match while messaging at one point. (Others may consider that Cobblers )

Here is the timetable for the 2016 April elections published April 8th -

Nominations open - 11th April 2016
General Q&A Meeting w/c - 18th April 2016
Clarification / Queries w/c - 25th April 2016
Nominations close - 7th May 2016
Voting forms and manifestos sent to members - 19th May 2016
Manifestos published - 26th May 2016
Closing date for voting - 9th July 2016
Result announced at General Meeting following closing date - TBC

They received 9 valid nominations?

Club announcement.

As most Newport County fans will know the directors of Newport County football club are committed to the supporters and owners of Newport County being kept fully in the loop. Now while it is impossible to keep everyone happy we have a deep and lasting commitment to consulting you and listening to your ideas, your praise, your criticism.

It was with this in mind that we undertook to have quarterly open meetings. Where full and sometimes frank exchanges can take place. Sadly in the present circumstances an open public meeting is not presently a viable option.

However in this electronic age what we have decided to do is this. We invite all your written questions to be emailed to us at the address below. We will then live stream our response and via the wonders of Zoom and Skype invite follow up questions.

Oh and don't forget, the directors who were elected before Christmas 2017 are up for election again in the autumn and it's already June. So consider if you might like to play an even greater part in planning our club's future.

Your trust etc etc.

Amberexile wrote:I'm not sure about "the rules for co-opting go out the window when it suits" although do believe that elections have been far from ideal over the years and Stan has some valid criticisms of this which have been discussed at length previously.

I believe 2016 is the year when Stan and I were swapping messages trying to understand fully the process and board make up in advance of the timetable being issued and nominations opening as he had issued his manifesto in advance. If I recall correctly, I was at the Northampton away match while messaging at one point. (Others may consider that Cobblers )

Here is the timetable for the 2016 April elections published April 8th -

Nominations open - 11th April 2016
General Q&A Meeting w/c - 18th April 2016
Clarification / Queries w/c - 25th April 2016
Nominations close - 7th May 2016
Voting forms and manifestos sent to members - 19th May 2016
Manifestos published - 26th May 2016
Closing date for voting - 9th July 2016
Result announced at General Meeting following closing date - TBC

They received 9 valid nominations?

Paul,

That's the point. I was in Canada for the first two weeks of that process. There is internet in Canada in any event. My application was not ready by the close of nominations. That is my responsibility. I accept that. My late application was not allowed as rules have to be strictly adhered to. I accepted that. No problem.

But as you yourself have said. Rules are not always adhered to. And that is where the problem lies.

Can you then say The rules don't allow you to change your manifesto but okay this time? Can you say I am the election officer who rules on what is fair and what is not, and the fact one of the candidates is my brother is neither here nor there and remain credible? Can you have rules with respect to co-opting directors which can be overlooked when it suits and pretend this doesn't offend against a sense of fairness?

In my view no.

whoareya wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Forgot to mention that you do not need to be elected to be on the board.
Just get co opted on by a pal and unless somebody tells me different you never ever need to seek re election.
That's 2 of the current board totally un elected.

All good fun and the weather breaks tomorrow.

Arent those co-opted to the club board, not the Trust board?

Club Board is I believe the main most important part of the clubs running.
Just stating a fact that chaps can run "our club" without ever asking the membership.
Will never need to seek election.
Assume nothing to stop more mates being asked to join the table also.

Yes it is, but you were referring to the Trust board and mentioned until you were told differently.

So I have, you were wrong.

Lost me here. Where do I refer to the trust board?
Its the same bunch that get elected.
The inner sanctum pick what they want then the scraps are left for the newcomers.
Nothing to do with you being correct.

A point which rarely gets mentioned and the younger generation will be clueless on.
A certain Charlie Hopkins was probably the main reason why we still have a club called Newport County.
Being our legal expert at the High Court he tore the WFA , Evans etc to pieces.

Regrettably he could see the way our elected board was going and resigned as only response available.
Some total clueless twonks here even gave him stick.
Unbelievable.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I'm not sure about "the rules for co-opting go out the window when it suits" although do believe that elections have been far from ideal over the years and Stan has some valid criticisms of this which have been discussed at length previously.

I believe 2016 is the year when Stan and I were swapping messages trying to understand fully the process and board make up in advance of the timetable being issued and nominations opening as he had issued his manifesto in advance. If I recall correctly, I was at the Northampton away match while messaging at one point. (Others may consider that Cobblers )

Here is the timetable for the 2016 April elections published April 8th -

Nominations open - 11th April 2016
General Q&A Meeting w/c - 18th April 2016
Clarification / Queries w/c - 25th April 2016
Nominations close - 7th May 2016
Voting forms and manifestos sent to members - 19th May 2016
Manifestos published - 26th May 2016
Closing date for voting - 9th July 2016
Result announced at General Meeting following closing date - TBC

They received 9 valid nominations?

Paul,

That's the point. I was in Canada for the first two weeks of that process. There is internet in Canada in any event. My application was not ready by the close of nominations. That is my responsibility. I accept that. My late application was not allowed as rules have to be strictly adhered to. I accepted that. No problem.

But as you yourself have said. Rules are not always adhered to. And that is where the problem lies.

Can you then say The rules don't allow you to change your manifesto but okay this time? Can you say I am the election officer who rules on what is fair and what is not, and the fact one of the candidates is my brother is neither here nor there and remain credible? Can you have rules with respect to co-opting directors which can be overlooked when it suits and pretend this doesn't offend against a sense of fairness?

In my view no.

I have every faith that the election officer being the brother of one of the candidates had no influence on that candidate being elected.
I'm not sure which rules about co-opting you refer to as having been overlooked.
All in all, I believe that the whole set up is flawed and believe that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of supporters direct but I don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the football.
The farcical state in our parliament at the moment on the other hand...

Amberexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I'm not sure about "the rules for co-opting go out the window when it suits" although do believe that elections have been far from ideal over the years and Stan has some valid criticisms of this which have been discussed at length previously.

I believe 2016 is the year when Stan and I were swapping messages trying to understand fully the process and board make up in advance of the timetable being issued and nominations opening as he had issued his manifesto in advance. If I recall correctly, I was at the Northampton away match while messaging at one point. (Others may consider that Cobblers )

Here is the timetable for the 2016 April elections published April 8th -

Nominations open - 11th April 2016
General Q&A Meeting w/c - 18th April 2016
Clarification / Queries w/c - 25th April 2016
Nominations close - 7th May 2016
Voting forms and manifestos sent to members - 19th May 2016
Manifestos published - 26th May 2016
Closing date for voting - 9th July 2016
Result announced at General Meeting following closing date - TBC

They received 9 valid nominations?

Paul,

That's the point. I was in Canada for the first two weeks of that process. There is internet in Canada in any event. My application was not ready by the close of nominations. That is my responsibility. I accept that. My late application was not allowed as rules have to be strictly adhered to. I accepted that. No problem.

But as you yourself have said. Rules are not always adhered to. And that is where the problem lies.

Can you then say The rules don't allow you to change your manifesto but okay this time? Can you say I am the election officer who rules on what is fair and what is not, and the fact one of the candidates is my brother is neither here nor there and remain credible? Can you have rules with respect to co-opting directors which can be overlooked when it suits and pretend this doesn't offend against a sense of fairness?

In my view no.

I have every faith that the election officer being the brother of one of the candidates had no influence on that candidate being elected.
I'm not sure which rules about co-opting you refer to as having been overlooked.
All in all, I believe that the whole set up is flawed and believe that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of supporters direct but I don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the football.
The farcical state in our parliament at the moment on the other hand...

I don't for one moment suggest that the election scrutinizer being the brother of a candidate meant to show bias.. However as with Caesar's wife it is not enough to be above suspicion you have to be seen to be above suspicion.

The difficulty is a well known difficulty for anyone defending an allegation of bias. Unless the bias is deliberate then the person showing bias is unaware of it. You can be sure that Mr Everett is a person of integrity. You can be sure that he always acted in what he believed was a scrupulously fair manner. I believe that also. Can you be sure that if Mr Everett's brother's application had been delayed in the post or sent to the wrong email address that the brother would have ruled in the same way?

Neither can I.

I once played for a cricket team where something similar happened. The best person to do the job did the job, the best person to get elected got elected.

In hindsight, we would have been better off having a sub-optimal solution in both the roles of scrutineer and committee member and I'm sure if the people involved had known that the bickering would have resulted in a rift within the team that eventually led to it's demise they would have both stepped aside.

I think we agree that the situation was sub-optimal at the time, fortunately the County has survived. Maybe because there have been no allegations of bias and hopefully the regular reminders to the powers that be will prevent a similar situation in the future. We can at least hope.

Back on topic - It is our club but only in the sense that if it gets into the mire again, we will dig it out again.

Amberexile wrote:I once played for a cricket team where something similar happened. The best person to do the job did the job, the best person to get elected got elected.

In hindsight, we would have been better off having a sub-optimal solution in both the roles of scrutineer and committee member and I'm sure if the people involved had known that the bickering would have resulted in a rift within the team that eventually led to it's demise they would have both stepped aside.

I think we agree that the situation was sub-optimal at the time, fortunately the County has survived. Maybe because there have been no allegations of bias and hopefully the regular reminders to the powers that be will prevent a similar situation in the future. We can at least hope.

Back on topic - It is our club but only in the sense that if it gets into the mire again, we will dig it out again.

I don't disagree with your last paragraph.

However if it is not our club, in your view whose club is it? Secondly do you approve or disapprove of the club not belonging to the supporters? Finally as the club continually remind supporters it is their/our club, do you believe that the club are not being truthful or do you think that the club are under the same misconception as everyone else?

And I'm not trying to catch you out. I don't know the answer to any of those questions. And with the exception of the second question it may well be you don't either.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Amberexile wrote:I once played for a cricket team where something similar happened. The best person to do the job did the job, the best person to get elected got elected.

In hindsight, we would have been better off having a sub-optimal solution in both the roles of scrutineer and committee member and I'm sure if the people involved had known that the bickering would have resulted in a rift within the team that eventually led to it's demise they would have both stepped aside.

I think we agree that the situation was sub-optimal at the time, fortunately the County has survived. Maybe because there have been no allegations of bias and hopefully the regular reminders to the powers that be will prevent a similar situation in the future. We can at least hope.

Back on topic - It is our club but only in the sense that if it gets into the mire again, we will dig it out again.

I don't disagree with your last paragraph.

However if it is not our club, in your view whose club is it? Secondly do you approve or disapprove of the club not belonging to the supporters? Finally as the club continually remind supporters it is their/our club, do you believe that the club are not being truthful or do you think that the club are under the same misconception as everyone else?

And I'm not trying to catch you out. I don't know the answer to any of those questions. And with the exception of the second question it may well be you don't either.

The club is different things to different people. Yes, there is a private limited company of which the Trust is the major shareholder but is some listing at Companies House really your Newport County? It isn't mine. Nobody else can own my Newport County.

I once had a very long conversation with a good friend back in the Newport AFC playing at Gloucester days which began with the question - what is Newport AFC on a Monday afternoon, what is Newport AFC on a Saturday afternoon?.

To me, the phrase fans owned club is a useful dupe used both by those who run the club and those who wish to criticise those running it. Of course by using it in the first place the club allows, possibly encourages, the criticism.

Fans run club would be a better description in my view. Although even that isn't strictly true.

I tend not to get hung up on who owns or runs the club and concentrate on enjoying my football, developing my Newport County.