For me and it may be semantics - its the word(s) 'lie' & 'lying' there is an ethical, moral and legal issue around those terms and I feel deeply uncomfortable with that when applied to people at heart who are good people whether they were competent to run a professional football club is another question - but did they really 'lie'?

I suppose a 'lie' is the intentional expression of something you know to be not correct or alternatively an intentional untruth, when you say it. So, if, in a particular set of facts, all the elements are there and particularly the mental elements of intent to lie and knowing it was incorrect, then a lie is being told. If the elements aren't there, the it's not a lie. So, in a strict sense it doesn't matter about people who are good people at heart they still may tell lies. But because all the elements of a lie must be there and the accuser should be able to prove them, it is unwise to call people liars.

Chris Davis wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:23 am I suppose a 'lie' is the intentional expression of something you know to be not correct or alternatively an intentional untruth, when you say it. So, if, in a particular set of facts, all the elements are there and particularly the mental elements of intent to lie and knowing it was incorrect, then a lie is being told. If the elements aren't there, the it's not a lie. So, in a strict sense it doesn't matter about people who are good people at heart they still may tell lies. But because all the elements of a lie must be there and the accuser should be able to prove them, it is unwise to call people liars.

Again I disagree.

If a small limited company are losing £3,000 a day and the finance director tells you finances are on target. If the accounts to the end of June show a small company has lost 1.2 million pounds but in May a director says we have no assets but only owe 61 thousand pounds then either they are lying or I am Napoleon Bonaparte.

For a lie to work two things must happen. One the lie must be told and two someone has to be prepared to accept the lie.

Chris they lied.

CathedralCounty wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:01 am For me and it may be semantics - its the word(s) 'lie' & 'lying' there is an ethical, moral and legal issue around those terms and I feel deeply uncomfortable with that when applied to people at heart who are good people whether they were competent to run a professional football club is another question - but did they really 'lie'?

Of course you feel uncomfortable. It's not very nice.

We find death very uncomfortable. We don't like to acknowledge that one day we will die and worse the overwhelming majority of even the people we know won't give a toss. But being uncomfortable about that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:43 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:23 am I suppose a 'lie' is the intentional expression of something you know to be not correct or alternatively an intentional untruth, when you say it. So, if, in a particular set of facts, all the elements are there and particularly the mental elements of intent to lie and knowing it was incorrect, then a lie is being told. If the elements aren't there, the it's not a lie. So, in a strict sense it doesn't matter about people who are good people at heart they still may tell lies. But because all the elements of a lie must be there and the accuser should be able to prove them, it is unwise to call people liars.

Again I disagree.

If a small limited company are losing £3,000 a day and the finance director tells you finances are on target. If the accounts to the end of June show a small company has lost 1.2 million pounds but in May a director says we have no assets but only owe 61 thousand pounds then either they are lying or I am Napoleon Bonaparte.

For a lie to work two things must happen. One the lie must be told and two someone has to be prepared to accept the lie.

Chris they lied.

I wasn't coming down on whether lying took place in the context you describe above or in your original post. I was just explaining what telling a lie means to me. So, if I, personally, wanted to know if a person was telling a lie or not, then I would apply in full what I posted. Unfortunately, in the context of your post, I don't think anyone will ever know if all the factual and mental elements were in place to confirm or not if a lie, as I define it, has happened or not. That, of course, does not stop others applying a less strict or different set of criteria, e.g. moral or philosophical approaches to what constitutes a lie. Without getting too heavy about the whole business, of course.

Chris Davis wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:55 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:43 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:23 am I suppose a 'lie' is the intentional expression of something you know to be not correct or alternatively an intentional untruth, when you say it. So, if, in a particular set of facts, all the elements are there and particularly the mental elements of intent to lie and knowing it was incorrect, then a lie is being told. If the elements aren't there, the it's not a lie. So, in a strict sense it doesn't matter about people who are good people at heart they still may tell lies. But because all the elements of a lie must be there and the accuser should be able to prove them, it is unwise to call people liars.

Again I disagree.

If a small limited company are losing £3,000 a day and the finance director tells you finances are on target. If the accounts to the end of June show a small company has lost 1.2 million pounds but in May a director says we have no assets but only owe 61 thousand pounds then either they are lying or I am Napoleon Bonaparte.

For a lie to work two things must happen. One the lie must be told and two someone has to be prepared to accept the lie.

Chris they lied.

I wasn't coming down on whether lying took place in the context you describe above or in your original post. I was just explaining what telling a lie means to me. So, if I, personally, wanted to know if a person was telling a lie or not, then I would apply in full what I posted. Unfortunately, in the context of your post, I don't think anyone will ever know if all the factual and mental elements were in place to confirm or not if a lie, as I define it, has happened or not. That, of course, does not stop others applying a less strict or different set of criteria, e.g. moral or philosophical approaches to what constitutes a lie. Without getting too heavy about the whole business, of course.

Chris,

Everybody lies. I lie, you lie, it is estimated, although in fairness God knows how, that the average person lies 16 times a day. As you know the reason for taking an oath in court is because most of us won't lie on oath.

My problem with the lies told by the directors of Newport County is two fold. Firstly they were handling other people's money. That they cocked up the finances is bad but forgivable. That they chose to lie about it, not so much.

The second reason, related to the first is that in doing so they walked on the dreams of children. And when it comes to football none of us grew up.

Chris Davis wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:23 am I suppose a 'lie' is the intentional expression of something you know to be not correct or alternatively an intentional untruth, when you say it. So, if, in a particular set of facts, all the elements are there and particularly the mental elements of intent to lie and knowing it was incorrect, then a lie is being told. If the elements aren't there, the it's not a lie. So, in a strict sense it doesn't matter about people who are good people at heart they still may tell lies. But because all the elements of a lie must be there and the accuser should be able to prove them, it is unwise to call people liars.

Agreed, people give answers to what journalists have asked. What they don't do is tell them what they should have asked........

On another post, there is a claim that the fans have saved the club twice. Factually the trust was given the club to run by Les Scadding and fans effectively raised the petty cash needed to run it initially.

27 years before, the club died, and David Hando and Co. started a new club. The link between the two was the name, which David bought at auction. Now you could take the view that David was wrong, and that the £10k raised to save the old County, shouldn't have been used to pay back creditors of the old County after it's demise. I think over time his judgment proved to be well worth it, as most oldies like myself just see the two incarnations as just a continuation. Nevertheless the concept that the trust is able to raise enough funds to save a club, is very different from the funds needed to run a club.

My own view is that the trust membership is mostly deluded in its view that the trust is there to save the club.

HJ mentions specifically that in his view, the trust will one day return to running the club. So to me the 'we must have accountability and hang them high brigade' only achieves less people willing to volunteer to assist HJ achieve his goal of returning the club to the Trust.

To me it should be HJ deciding, not trust members, who should sit on his board and be his apprentices.

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 10th, 2024, 9:54 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 10th, 2024, 9:29 am

CathedralCounty wrote: April 10th, 2024, 8:32 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 9th, 2024, 12:30 pm It's covered in a number of topics but there is one question I would like to ask all the readers of this board.

I accept fully this is a serious allegation. I accept fully that in and of itself honest failures in the management of Newport County whilst worthy of criticism are not in and of themselves capital offences. None of us haven't at some stage in our lives f@cked things up completely. So to the question.

I believe that the previous board of Newport County lied to supporters about the true financial position of Newport County AFC. Is there anyone who would care to disagree with that simple proposition?

Not so - people on committees/boards are not always and not necessarily in possession of the full facts until they have become clear - its quite possible they had little inkling of the gravity of the financial situation. My view is that nobody 'lied' but possibly somebody should have known. Question people's competence by all means but to question their integrity, which a 'lie' would be a breach of, is another matter.

Equally communication with supporters was 'secret squirrel' as which leads to [in my view incorrect] allegations of this type - withhold information and you immediately arouse suspicion.

I disagree with your premise. But let's say for the sake of argument you are right.

If you say that everything financially is 'on target' when you don't know then you are still lying.

And whilst I would agree that some of the directors might be guilty of simply not doing their job, the club were losing £3,000 a day. That's not an oversight on the part of the finance director.

That is of course if you believe that Stan has put thousands directly into the club coffers over the years.

If you believe that covid had no financial affect, or that drainage and two pitch renewals had no affect, and it was all Gavin Foxall's fault........ for not building a new ground.

Excuses, excuses, face facts that the Trust grossly mismanaged the Club in allowing Foxall too much latitude, and yes, he did lie! if you were part of that cabal then you along with all the others should be thoroughly ashamed, meanwhile where is our erstwhile Chairman, still in the hills?

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: April 10th, 2024, 11:43 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: April 10th, 2024, 9:54 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 10th, 2024, 9:29 am

CathedralCounty wrote: April 10th, 2024, 8:32 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 9th, 2024, 12:30 pm It's covered in a number of topics but there is one question I would like to ask all the readers of this board.

I accept fully this is a serious allegation. I accept fully that in and of itself honest failures in the management of Newport County whilst worthy of criticism are not in and of themselves capital offences. None of us haven't at some stage in our lives f@cked things up completely. So to the question.

I believe that the previous board of Newport County lied to supporters about the true financial position of Newport County AFC. Is there anyone who would care to disagree with that simple proposition?

Not so - people on committees/boards are not always and not necessarily in possession of the full facts until they have become clear - its quite possible they had little inkling of the gravity of the financial situation. My view is that nobody 'lied' but possibly somebody should have known. Question people's competence by all means but to question their integrity, which a 'lie' would be a breach of, is another matter.

Equally communication with supporters was 'secret squirrel' as which leads to [in my view incorrect] allegations of this type - withhold information and you immediately arouse suspicion.

I disagree with your premise. But let's say for the sake of argument you are right.

If you say that everything financially is 'on target' when you don't know then you are still lying.

And whilst I would agree that some of the directors might be guilty of simply not doing their job, the club were losing £3,000 a day. That's not an oversight on the part of the finance director.

That is of course if you believe that Stan has put thousands directly into the club coffers over the years.

If you believe that covid had no financial affect, or that drainage and two pitch renewals had no affect, and it was all Gavin Foxall's fault........ for not building a new ground.

Excuses, excuses, face facts that the Trust grossly mismanaged the Club in allowing Foxall too much latitude, and yes, he did lie! if you were part of that cabal then you along with all the others should be thoroughly ashamed, meanwhile where is our erstwhile Chairman, still in the hills?

I'm not, it's another lie perpetrated by those with agenda's.

As you're an accountant, and should know that the accounting period was up to the end of June.
That includes the period for season tickets sales, which as you should know, show in the accounts as a loss, due to them being a service that has been paid for, but not yet delivered. So big loss equals good sales.........

So tell us more about why you think the club is trading in a insolvent position as you have mentioned.

Also tell us about the accrued expenses which also form a large chunk of debt, and has done for the last two accounts.........

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:43 am

Chris Davis wrote: April 10th, 2024, 10:23 am I suppose a 'lie' is the intentional expression of something you know to be not correct or alternatively an intentional untruth, when you say it. So, if, in a particular set of facts, all the elements are there and particularly the mental elements of intent to lie and knowing it was incorrect, then a lie is being told. If the elements aren't there, the it's not a lie. So, in a strict sense it doesn't matter about people who are good people at heart they still may tell lies. But because all the elements of a lie must be there and the accuser should be able to prove them, it is unwise to call people liars.

Again I disagree.

If a small limited company are losing £3,000 a day and the finance director tells you finances are on target. If the accounts to the end of June show a small company has lost 1.2 million pounds but in May a director says we have no assets but only owe 61 thousand pounds then either they are lying or I am Napoleon Bonaparte.

For a lie to work two things must happen. One the lie must be told and two someone has to be prepared to accept the lie.

Chris they lied.

Notwithstanding that I agree with you that the trust board, and in particular Foxhall, Madigan and Crook, were generally useless, why are you still peddling this?

It has been explained to you over and over that it’s possible to lose millions in an accounting period but not be in any debt. Its been said you were a lawyer but I find that astonishing as you are clearly sailing way too close to the wind with your comments and I’m truly amazed that no one has ever sued you.

Really amazing. Taunton is an accountant but Bangit knows more about accountancy than he does. I'd be amazed if anyone sued me but SixtyIQ knows better.

Then again......

Stan A. Einstein wrote: April 12th, 2024, 11:00 pm Really amazing. Taunton is an accountant but Bangit knows more about accountancy than he does. I'd be amazed if anyone sued me but SixtyIQ knows better.

Then again......

Why doesn't Taunton answer the questions then?

The fact is Peter Madigan said in his Argus piece that we had no real debt, I.E. that the debt that we had was because of season ticket sales and the like. He also mentioned that we had no assets, because asset depreciation shows as debt. Chris has alluded to there being no actual factual basis to conclude that he lied. We know some debt occurred between the piece and the end of the year accounts, and we know that the co- opted directors made loans available at nil cost with no terms, but you still cling to your fantasy that he lied about debt..........

Again we have the same things in the last accounts. So are the losses the same things happening? The fact is we don't know, and the accountants don't know because we don't know the impact of of things like season ticket sales. We do know that lots of things make up the annual overspend, because that's what we were told at the meeting, where the trust membership had to commit to funding it, if a new owner wasn't found. Obviously you're not a trust member, so are not aware, and don't want to be aware as you have never joined. So you keep repeating the same fantasy, simply because it is you, that doesn't understand that losses don't equal debt. You also don't understand that if we part owned RP that the accounts would show a depreciation of assets debt, alongside a capital debt..............

Oh dear, here we go yet again

Bonson&Hunt wrote: April 13th, 2024, 8:15 am Oh dear, here we go yet again

And of course have no interest in the actual facts, mearly that Stan told everyone before all the meetings not to believe what was said and that we were in huge debt..................

A trust run club doesn't have access to capital funds or loans. If you can't have loans it follows that you don't have debt. Pretending that losses = debt, simply ignores that basic fact.