halfmoon wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Reading the minutes I noticed quietly slipped in was 'Outstanding debtors have been passed on to debt recovery experts for enforcement action'.

I wonder who owes the club money. I doubt somehow it's the EFL or Wolverhampton Wanderers. Must be one of the club sponsors. I think we should be told who these miscreants are. So as not to adversely affect the good name of the likes of Interbet.
The more cynical amongst you might accuse me of innuendo. Absolutely not. Why just because Interbet were a betting exchange where it was impossible to place a bet and were formed by a man with a history of forming such ghost companies, I'm sure that the board of directors of Newport County would not have taken on such a company without making sure that any monies owed would be available.
No clearly to avoid such silly speculation by County supporters it is incumbent on the board to name and shame these people who have stolen from us.

Off the top of my head, my guess would be Interbet who, if I remember rightly, didn't seem to actually exist for most of the season they were sponsoring us.

I find that difficult to believe. Why on this board I was castigated for pointing out my concerns about Interbet. I'm sure the astute business minds of the likes of Messrs. Johnson, Ward and Foxhall, would simply not have countenanced a commercial tie up with so many sirens going off had they not thoroughly checked out Interbet. I mean if it is Interbet our directors are going to come across as total idiots.

Exile 1976 wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

NearlyDead wrote:

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.


So agressive

WTF?

Putting a word albeit misspelled in Capitals.
Simple.
Then replying with WTF

Even simpler.

I think you have that wrong Paul.
I'm not a young 'un but I guess that AFAICT stands for 'As Far As I Can Tell'

Morning Exile
71 today and never heard that before.
Old school so would of written that in full.
How lazy are the kids of today.

George Street-Bridge wrote:Whoosh! It's shorthand for "as far as I can tell".

Well there you go.
Whoosh back.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Reading the minutes I noticed quietly slipped in was 'Outstanding debtors have been passed on to debt recovery experts for enforcement action'.

I wonder who owes the club money....
Who are these debtors?

A similar line about debtors was in the January minutes:

Legal action to be taken against some overdue debtors.

and was mentioned in last December's minutes:

Overdue debtors – there was a discussion around the best ways in which to deal with these, which may result in legal action.

NearlyDead wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Reading the minutes I noticed quietly slipped in was 'Outstanding debtors have been passed on to debt recovery experts for enforcement action'.

I wonder who owes the club money....
Who are these debtors?

A similar line about debtors was in the January minutes:

Legal action to be taken against some overdue debtors.

and was mentioned in last December's minutes:

Overdue debtors – there was a discussion around the best ways in which to deal with these, which may result in legal action.

Absolutely.

But for me the issue is this. County get income from EFL grants, transfer fees, gate income and sponsors.

Sponsors is just another term for advertising revenue. And clearly, I will of course be corrected if I am wrong, it is from this source of income that the unpaid debt(s) arise.

Now this results in two very important reasons why the directors of Newport County need to publish who these/ this rogue (s) is/are.

Firstly Newport County supporters are encouraged to use those companies which advertise in the programme, take hospitality, sponsor the shirt. Clearly it would be wrong for Newport County to effect encouraging their support base to do business with people who are essentially crooks.

Secondly the vast majority of companies who advertise by association with Newport County are entire honest and above board are now being cloaked with suspicion. And this is wrong.

Clearly therefore our board of directors must, having published that there are rogues about, unmask these scoundrels, and show Newport County as a force for good in our community.

I'm weighing up the irony of a football club dishing the dirt on an organisation/s who have for whatever reason mismanaged their finances.

Whilst not disagreeing entirely with your drift, and as I'm sure you are very aware, I was commenting on your "quietly slipped in" comment. If it was "quietly slipped in" then that was done so last December and January, not in the May minutes.

The remedy is simple. At the AGM, when the annual accounts are presented, or at some other club/trust public forum opportunity, questions about the debtors situation should be put to the board directly. Whether they feel able to answer fully then is another matter.

NearlyDead wrote:Whilst not disagreeing entirely with your drift, and as I'm sure you are very aware, I was commenting on your "quietly slipped in" comment. If it was "quietly slipped in" then that was done so last December and January, not in the May minutes.

The remedy is simple. At the AGM, when the annual accounts are presented, or at some other club/trust public forum opportunity, questions about the debtors situation should be put to the board directly. Whether they feel able to answer fully then is another matter.

Slipped in quietly really referred to the absence of full facts but I take your point.

AGM there's a thought.

But really imagine that you are a small trader in Newport who has perhaps sponsored a ball, or a player, or taken out a small add in the programme. You have paid for this. And yet the shroud of suspicion now hangs about your name.

No, even if it is embarrassing, the club must publish the facts. To do otherwise would shame our club.

Consider that the debtor or debtors may have a counter to the claim that they owe us money. Would it then be appropriate to put the name(s) of the debtor(s) into the public domain before the matter runs its legal course?

NearlyDead wrote:Consider that the debtor or debtors may have a counter to the claim that they owe us money. Would it then be appropriate to put the name(s) of the debtor(s) into the public domain before the matter runs its legal course?

If they do, I don't see how but it's possible, then they do. I very much doubt it's a counter claim, they may have a defence. If it goes to court it's public knowledge anyway, who the parties are.

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.

The Newport County AFC Supporters’ Trust Board (or abbreviated variations such as Supporters’ Trust) is the full Trust Board.

A subdivision of the full Trust Board, directed/mandated to do so by the full Trust Board, can meet independently of the full Trust Board (the minutes of which would not be of the full Trust Board) to examine issues germane to those particular subdivisions, so not taking up full Trust Board time.

The full Trust Board are just stating that they are approving the redacted full Trust Board Feb meeting minutes for publication, as opposed to approving, say, redacted minutes of a meeting of a subdivision of the full Trust Board for publication.

Thank you. Your second paragraph states the point that I was trying to make.

pembsexile wrote:

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.

The Newport County AFC Supporters’ Trust Board (or abbreviated variations such as Supporters’ Trust) is the full Trust Board.

A subdivision of the full Trust Board, directed/mandated to do so by the full Trust Board, can meet independently of the full Trust Board (the minutes of which would not be of the full Trust Board) to examine issues germane to those particular subdivisions, so not taking up full Trust Board time.

The full Trust Board are just stating that they are approving the redacted full Trust Board Feb meeting minutes for publication, as opposed to approving, say, redacted minutes of a meeting of a subdivision of the full Trust Board for publication.

Thank you. Your second paragraph states the point that I was trying to make.

There is nothing wrong with sub groups being mandated by the full board to examine a particular issue. So long as,

a) the full board mandates it, and

b) the sub group reports its findings to the full board and the full board discuss the findings an make the final decision.

The suspicion is, and to be fair it is the one which I share, that sub groups have become controlling cliques.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

pembsexile wrote:

NearlyDead wrote:There is no ambiguity, AFAICT.

The Newport County AFC Supporters’ Trust Board (or abbreviated variations such as Supporters’ Trust) is the full Trust Board.

A subdivision of the full Trust Board, directed/mandated to do so by the full Trust Board, can meet independently of the full Trust Board (the minutes of which would not be of the full Trust Board) to examine issues germane to those particular subdivisions, so not taking up full Trust Board time.

The full Trust Board are just stating that they are approving the redacted full Trust Board Feb meeting minutes for publication, as opposed to approving, say, redacted minutes of a meeting of a subdivision of the full Trust Board for publication.

Thank you. Your second paragraph states the point that I was trying to make.

There is nothing wrong with sub groups being mandated by the full board to examine a particular issue. So long as,

a) the full board mandates it, and

b) the sub group reports its findings to the full board and the full board discuss the findings an make the final decision.

The suspicion is, and to be fair it is the one which I share, that sub groups have become controlling cliques.

No problem with that Brendan. I won’t pretend that I know a lot about Organisational procedures and sub groups etc. However, in a previous post on this thread, there seemed to be the idea promoted that the statement put out was by the Supporters Trust and not the Club Trust. It is obvious now that they are the same thing.

There is a Supporters Trust. There's no such thing as a Club Trust.

pembsexile wrote:

No problem with that Brendan. I won’t pretend that I know a lot about Organisational procedures and sub groups etc. However, in a previous post on this thread, there seemed to be the idea promoted that the statement put out was by the Supporters Trust and not the Club Trust. It is obvious now that they are the same thing.

Only promoted by two. One of whom has already indicated in his reply just how much a pedant can maintain a totally ridiculous argument.