Bush wrote:In my opinion GF would have discussed with the current board members, and then offered, our manager, who's stock was very high and apparently attracting the interest of other clubs, a new and improved deal was the right thing to do at the time.

Alan G Bryant wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:The Gavin bashing squad are struggling for new material now by the look of things. Either that or they have risk amnesia.

Back at the turn of the year Flynny’s stock was very high. If he had pissed off somewhere else without us getting any compensation, the same people would now be on here slagging gavin off for not giving him an extension.

As I said on February the 18th, my view was that Gavin was wrong to have given the extension before the new directors were in place. In any event Flynn was under contract anyway.

I accept fully that hindsight is a perfect science. However my view has always been that decisions are made and the future is unknown. However if a proper decision making process is in position you are more likely to get it right. Let me by way of analogy explain.

Tonight many people will decide to drive home from the pub whilst over the drink/drive limit. The overwhelming majority will get home safely and will not be stopped by the police. By this time tomorrow, somewhere in the UK a sober driver will make an error which will result in someone dying.

Notwithstanding these facts I hold the view that it is better to drive sober.

There was a proper elongated decision making process in place before the appointment of Anthony Hudson. The appointment of his replacement Justin Edinburgh took just a matter of days.

Exile 1976 wrote:

Even if they fall out with other board members they show themselves to be snivelling little weasels by leaking information out like Brendan's mucca. Hopefully we can find out who it is and the board can get rid of him/them.

Exile 1976 wrote: In my opinion GF would have discussed with the current board members, and then offered, our manager, who's stock was very high and apparently attracting the interest of other clubs, a new and improved deal was the right thing to do at the time.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:

Even if they fall out with other board members they show themselves to be snivelling little weasels by leaking information out like Brendan's mucca. Hopefully we can find out who it is and the board can get rid of him/them.

Snivelling little weasels?

I rather think he, she, or they will find that amusing. I don't think person or persons unknown is/are likely to identify his self, herself, or themselves, do you? And I'm not letting on either. As one board member once said it would be far better if the directors concentrated on running the club than trying to 'out' the mole.

Seriously though, have you considered that perhaps person or persons unknown might feel their first duty is to the club and the fans who finance the club? You may of course disagree with method but getting angry and hurling insults isn't going to do you or your cause any favours. Do you not think perhaps you might be better advised just to stick to the issues?

Exile 1976 wrote:

I'm not angry but i am going to 'hurl insults' at some weasel who feels the need to let out confidential information this proving him/herself to be untrustworthy and that thing is supposed to be helping to run the club i love. Not the type of person i want on our board Brendan. THAT is the issue.

Mr Gallipoli wrote:Next time Stan is banned is there any chance it could be made permanent?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:

I'm not angry but i am going to 'hurl insults' at some weasel who feels the need to let out confidential information this proving him/herself to be untrustworthy and that thing is supposed to be helping to run the club i love. Not the type of person i want on our board Brendan. THAT is the issue.

No need to shout. 'That' may be the issue for you it doesn't make it the issue for me. As for the board members, they are elected. You have every right to choose who you want to represent you, but you can't make that decision by yourself. Of course you would like the information on who is/are the person or persons leaking. If you had that you could I suppose make a more informed decision on who to vote for. By the same token I want to know of the decisions taken and by whom, so that I likewise can make a better decision for whom to vote for.

So you see, you're wanting it both ways. You want the information that is important to you but you don't want information in the public sphere that you deem unimportant to you.

Frustrating, isn't it?

Cornish Exile wrote:It would be n ice to know who the mole is so that we can make a judgement as to whether he is credible or merely someone with his own agenda using Stan as his conduit.

Come on Stan, enlighten us.

Jimmy Exile wrote:hi. gotta agree with Exile anyone unprofessional enough to leak confidential info to stan needs there head read. especially when stan is a trouble maker who tries to damage the club and people with vendettas. makes the mole a coward and someone you could never trust. should be named and shamed as a disgrace to Newport

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

Jimmy Exile wrote:hi. gotta agree with Exile anyone unprofessional enough to leak confidential info to stan needs there head read. especially when stan is a trouble maker who tries to damage the club and people with vendettas. makes the mole a coward and someone you could never trust. should be named and shamed as a disgrace to Newport

You are entitled to your view Jimmy. I don't agree with you of course but I note your strong feelings. Have a pleasant evening.